(The Preface to this Volume can be found below, after "Notes".) THE Gospel of John, which begins with these verses, is in many respects very unlike the other three Gospels. It contains many things which they omit. It omits many things which they contain. Good reason might easily be shown for this unlikeness. But it is enough to remember that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote under the direct inspiration of God. In the general plan of their respective Gospels, and in the particular details,—in everything that they record, and in everything that they do not record,—they were all four equally and entirely guided by the Holy Ghost. About the matters which John was specially inspired to relate in his Gospel, one general remark will suffice. The things which are peculiar to his Gospel are among the most precious possessions of the Church of Christ. No one of the four Gospel-writers has given us such full statements about the divinity of Christ,—about justification by faith,—about the offices of Christ,—about the work of the Holy Ghost,—and about the privileges of believers, as we read in the pages of John. On none of these great subjects, undoubtedly, have Matthew, Mark, and Luke been silent. But in John's Gospel, they stand out prominently on the surface, so that he who runs may read. The five verses now before us contain a statement of matchless sublimity concerning the divine nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. He it is, beyond all question, whom John means, when he speaks of "the Word." No doubt there are heights and depths in that statement which are far beyond man's understanding. And yet there are plain lessons in it, which every Christian would do well to treasure up in his mind. We learn, firstly, that our Lord Jesus Christ is eternal. John tells us that "in the beginning was the Word." He did not begin to exist when the heavens and the earth were made. Much less did He begin to exist when the Gospel was brought into the world. He had glory with the Father "before the world was." (John 17:5.) He was existing when matter was first created, and before time began. He was "before all things." (Colossians 1:17.) He was from all eternity. We learn, secondly, that our Lord Jesus Christ is a Person distinct from God the Father, and yet one with Him. John tells us that "the Word was with God." The Father and the Word, though two persons, are joined by an ineffable union. Where God the Father was from all eternity, there also was the Word, even God the Son,—their glory equal, their majesty co-eternal, and yet their Godhead one. This is a great mystery! Happy is he who can receive it as a little child, without attempting to explain it. We learn, thirdly, that the Lord Jesus Christ is very God. John tells us that "the Word was God." He is not merely a created angel, or a being inferior to God the Father, and invested by Him with power to redeem sinners. He is nothing less than perfect God,—equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,—God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds. We learn, fourthly, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator of all things. John tells us that "by Him were all things made, and without Him was not any thing made that was made." So far from being a creature of God, as some heretics have falsely asserted, He is the Being who made the worlds and all that they contain. "He commanded and they were created." (Psalms 148:5.) We learn, lastly, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the source of all spiritual life and light. John tells us, that "in Him was life, and the life was the light of men." He is the eternal fountain, from which alone the sons of men have ever derived life. Whatever spiritual life and light Adam and Eve possessed before the fall, was from Christ. Whatever deliverance from sin and spiritual death any child of Adam has ever enjoyed since the fall, whatever light of conscience or understanding any one has obtained, all has flowed from Christ. The vast majority of mankind in every age have refused to know Him, have forgotten the fall, and their own need of a Savior. The light has been constantly shining "in darkness." The most have "not comprehended the light." But if any men and women out of the countless millions of mankind have ever had spiritual life and light, they have owed all to Christ. Such is a brief summary of the leading lessons which these wonderful verses appear to contain. There is much in them, without controversy, which is above our reason; but there is nothing contrary to it. There is much that we cannot explain, and must be content humbly to believe. Let us however never forget that there are plain practical consequences flowing from the passage, which we can never grasp too firmly, or know too well. Would we know, for one thing, the exceeding sinfulness of sin? Let us often read these first five verses of John's Gospel. Let us mark what kind of Being the Redeemer of mankind must needs be, in order to provide eternal redemption for sinners. If no one less than the Eternal God, the Creator and Preserver of all things, could take away the sin of the world, sin must be a far more abominable thing in the sight of God than most men suppose. The right measure of sin's sinfulness is the dignity of Him who came into the world to save sinners. If Christ is so great, then sin must indeed be sinful! Would we know, for another thing, the strength of a true Christian's foundation for hope? Let us often read these first five verses of John's Gospel. Let us mark that the Savior in whom the believer is bid to trust is nothing less than the Eternal God, One able to save to the uttermost all that come to the Father by Him. He that was "with God," and "was God," is also "Emmanuel, God with us." Let us thank God that our help is laid on One that is mighty. (Psalms 89:19.) In ourselves we are great sinners. But in Jesus Christ we have a great Savior. He is a strong foundation-stone, able to bear the weight of a world's sin. He that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. (1 Peter 2:6.) ============================ Notes— [The Gospel According to John.] The following prefatory remarks on John's Gospel, may prove useful to some readers. Firstly.—There is no doubt that this Gospel was written by John, the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, and brother of James, once a fisherman on the sea of Galilee, and afterwards called to be a disciple of the Lord Jesus, an eye-witness of all Christ's ministry, and a pillar of the church. John, be it remembered, is specially called "the disciple whom Jesus loved." He was one of the chosen three who alone saw the daughter of Jairus raised— were eye-witnesses of the transfiguration— and were by-standers during our Lord's agony in the garden. He was the one who leaned on Christ's breast at the last supper, and to whom our Lord committed the care of Mary, when He was dying on the cross. It is an interesting fact, that he was the disciple who was specially inspired to write the deepest things concerning Christ. Secondly.— There is little doubt that this Gospel was written at a much later date than the other three Gospels. How much later, and at what precise time, we do not know. It is commonly supposed that it was written after the rise of heresies about the Person and natures of Christ, such as those attributed to Ebion and Cerinthus. It is not likely that it was written at so late a period as the destruction of Jerusalem. If this had been the case, John would hardly have spoken of the "sheep-market" at Jerusalem as still standing. (John 5:2.) Thirdly.— The substance of this Gospel is, for the most part, peculiar to itself. With the exception of the crucifixion, and a few other matters, the things which John was inspired to record concerning our Lord, are only found in his gospel. He says nothing about our Lord's birth and infancy,— His temptation,— the Sermon on the Mount,— the transfiguration,— the prophecy about Jerusalem, and the appointment of the Lord's Supper. He gives us very few miracles, and even fewer parables. But the things which John does relate are among the most precious treasures which Christians possess. The chapters about Nicodemus,— the woman of Samaria,— the raising of Lazarus, and our Lord's appearance to Peter after His resurrection at the sea of Galilee,— the public discourses of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth chapters,— the private discourses of the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth chapters,— and, above all, the prayer of the seventeenth chapter, are some of the most valuable portions of the Bible. All these chapters, be it remembered, we owe to John. Fourthly.— The style of this Gospel is no less peculiar than its substance. There appears extraordinary simplicity in many of its statements, and yet there is a depth about them which no man can entirely fathom.— It contains many expressions which are used in a profound and spiritual sense, such as "light," "darkness," "world," "life," "truth," "to abide," " to know."— It contains two names of the second and third Persons of the Trinity, not found in the other Gospels. These are, "the Word," as a name of our Lord, and "the Comforter," as a name of the Holy Ghost.— It contains, from time to time, explanatory comments and remarks on our Lord's words.— Moreover, it contains frequent short explanations of Jewish customs and terms, which serve to show that it was not written so much for Jewish readers as for the whole church throughout the world. "Matthew," (says Gregory Nazianzen, quoted by Ford,) "wrote for the Hebrews ; Mark, for the Italians; Luke, for the Greeks; the great herald, John, for all." Lastly.— The preface of this Gospel is one of the most striking peculiarities about the whole book. Under the term preface, I include the first eighteen verses of the first chapter. This preface forms the quintessence of the whole book, and is composed of simple, short, condensed propositions. Nowhere in the Bible shall we find such clear and distinct statements about our Lord Jesus Christ's divine nature. Nowhere shall we find so many expressions, which for want of mental power, no mortal man can fully grasp or explain. In no portion of Scripture is it so deeply important to notice each word, and even each tense employed in each sentence. In no portion of Scripture do the perfect grammatical accuracy and verbal precision of an inspired composition shine out so brightly. It is not, perhaps, too much to say, that not a single word could be altered in the first five verses of John's Gospel, without opening the door to some heresy. The first verse of John's Gospel, in particular, has always been allowed to be one of the sublimest verses in the Bible. The ancients used to say that it deserved to be written in golden letters in every Christian Church. It has well been said to be an opening worthy of him whom Jesus called "a son of thunder." v1.—[In the beginning, &c.] This wonderful verse contains three things. It tells us that our Lord Jesus Christ, here called the Word, is eternal,— that He is a distinct Person from God the Father, and yet most intimately united to him,— and that He is God. The term "God," be it remembered, in the second clause, is to be taken personally, for God the Father, and in the third to be taken essentially, as signifying the Divine Being. The expression, "in the beginning," means in the beginning of all creation. It is like the first verse of Genesis, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1.) The expression "was" means "existed, was existing." The whole sentence signifies that when the world was first called into being, however long ago that may be,— when matter was first formed, however many millions of ages ago that may be,— at that period the Lord Jesus Christ was existing. He had no beginning. He was before all things. There never was the time when He was not. In short, the Lord Jesus Christ is an eternal Being. Several of the fathers dwell strongly on the immense importance of the word "was" in this sentence, and on the fact that it is four times repeated in the two first verses of this Gospel. It is not said, "the Word was made," but "the Word was." Basil says, "Those two terms, 'beginning' and 'was,' are like two anchors," which the ship of a man's soul may safely ride at, whatever storms of heresy may come. The expression, "the Word," is a very difficult one, and is peculiar to John. I see no clear proof that it is used by any other New Testament writer. The texts, Acts 20:32, and Hebrews 4:12, are, to say the least, doubtful proofs. That it here signifies a "person," and not a spoken word, and that it is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ, is clear from the after sentence, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." That it was a term familiar to the Jews is undeniable. But why this particular name is used by John, both here and in his other writings, is a point on which commentators have differed greatly. Some think, as Tertullian, Zwingle, Musculus, Bucer, and Calvin, that Christ is called "the Word" because He is the wisdom of God, and the "wisdom" of the Book of Proverbs. These would have the expression translated, "reason, wisdom, or counsel." Some think, as some of the fathers, that Christ is called "the Word," because He is the image and offspring of the Father's mind, "the express image of the Father's person," just as our words, if honest and sincere, are the image and representation of our minds. Some think, as Cartwright and Tittman, that Christ is called "the Word," because He is the Person who is spoken of in all the Old Testament promises, and the subject of prophecy. Some think, as Melancthon, Rollock, Gomarus, and Scott, that Christ is called "the Word," because He is the speaker, utterer, and interpreter of God the Father's will. It is written in this very chapter, that "the only begotten Son hath declared the Father." It is also written, that "God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." (Hebrews 1:1.) I think the last of these views the simplest and most satisfactory. All of them are at best only conjectures. There is probably something about the expression which has not yet been discovered. It is thought by many that the expression "the Word," is used in several places of the Old Testament, concerning the Second Person in the Trinity. Such places are Psalms 33:6; Psalms 107:20, and 2 Samuel 7:21, compared with 1 Chronicles 17:19. The proof in all these cases is somewhat doubtful. Nevertheless the idea is strengthened by the fact that in Rabbinical writing's the Messiah is often spoken of as "the Word." In the third of Genesis, the Chaldee paraphrase says that Adam and Eve "heard the Word of the Lord walking in the garden." Arrowsmith, in his admirable work on this chapter, suggests a probable reason why John did not say, "In the beginning was the Son of God," but "the Word."— "John would not at first alienate the hearts of his readers. He knew that neither Jews nor Gentiles would endure the term, the Son of God. They could not endure to hear of a sonship in the Deity and Godhead: but with this term 'Word,' applied to the Godhead, they were well acquainted."— Poole observes that no term was so abhorred by the Jews as the term "Son of God."— Ferus remarks, that by calling our Lord "the Word," John excludes all idea of a material, carnal relationship between the Father and the Son. This is also shown by Suicer to be the view of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Basil, Gregory, Nyssen, and Theophylact. Whatever difficulty we may feel about this expression, "the Word," in our times, there does not seem to have been the same difficulty felt about it, either by Jews or Gentiles, when John wrote his Gospel. To say, as some have done, that he borrowed the expression from the philosophers of his time, is dishonouring to inspiration. But we may safely say that he used an expression, of which the meaning was quite familiar to the first readers of his Gospel, as a name of the Second Person of the Trinity. With this we may be content. Those who wish more information, should consult Witsius' Dissertation on the Word Logos, Suicer's Thesaurus, and Adam Clarke's Commentary. [The word was with God.] This sentence means, that from all eternity there was a most intimate and ineffable union between the first and second Persons in the blessed Trinity,— between Christ the Word, and God the Father. And yet, though thus ineffably united, the Word and the Father were from all eternity two distinct Persons. "It was He," says Pearson, to whom the Father said, "Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:26.) The truth contained in this sentence, is one of the deepest and most mysterious in the whole range of Christian theology. The nature of this union between the Father and the Son, we have no mental capacity to explain. Augustine draws illustrations from the sun and its rays, and from fire and the light of fire, which, though two distinct things, are yet inseparably united, so that where the one is the other is. But all illustrations on such subjects halt and fail. Here, at any rate, it is better to believe than to attempt to explain. Our Lord says distinctly, "I am in the Father and the Father in me." "I and the Father are one." "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." (John 14:9-11; John 10:30.) Let us be fully persuaded that the Father and the Son are two distinct Persons in the Trinity, co-equal and co-eternal,— and yet that they are one in substance and inseparably united and undivided. Let us grasp firmly the words of the Athanasian Creed, "Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance." But here let us stop. Musculus remarks on this sentence, how carefully John writes that "the Word was with God," and not "God was with God." He would have us remember that there are not two Gods but one. And yet "the Word was with God, and was God." [The Word was God.] This sentence means that the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Word, was in nature, essence, and substance very God, and that "as the Father is God, so also the Son is God." It seems impossible to assert Christ's divinity more distinctly than it is here asserted. The sentence cannot possibly mean that the Father is God, since no one ever thought of disputing that. Nor yet can it possibly mean that the title of God was conferred on some being inferior to God and uncreated, as the princes of this world are called "gods." He who is here called God, is the same who was uncreated and eternal. There is no inferiority in the Word to God the Father. The Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one. To maintain in the face of such a text, as some so-called Christians do, that our Lord Jesus Christ was only a man, is a mournful proof of the perversity of the human heart. The whole verse, honestly and impartially interpreted, is an unanswerable argument against three classes of heretics. It confutes the Arians, who regard Christ as a Being inferior to God.— It confutes the Sabellians, who deny any distinction of Persons in the Trinity, and say that God sometimes manifested Himself as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Spirit, and that the Father and the Spirit suffered on the cross!— Above all it confutes the Socinians and Unitarians who say that Jesus Christ was not God but man, a most holy and perfect man, but only a man. In leaving this verse, it is useless to deny that there are deep mysteries in it which man has no mind to comprehend, and no language to express. How there can be a plurality in unity, and a unity in plurality, three Persons in the Trinity and One God in essence,— how Christ can be at the same time in the Father, as regards the unity of the essence, and with the Father, as regards the distinction of his Person,— these are matters far beyond our feeble understanding. Happy are we, if we can agree with Bernard's devout remark about the subject, "It is rashness to search too far into it. It is piety to believe it. It is life eternal to know it. And we can never have a full comprehension of it, till we come to enjoy it." v2.—[The same was in the beginning, &c.] This verse contains an emphatic repetition of the second clause of the preceding verse. John anticipates the possible objection of some perverse mind, that perhaps there was a time when Christ, the Word, was not a distinct Person in the Trinity. In reply to this objection, he declares that the same Word who was eternal, and was God, was also from all eternity a Person in the Godhead distinct from God the Father, and yet with Him by a most intimate and ineffable union. In short, there never was a time when Christ was not "with God." There are two passages in the Old Testament which throw strong light on the doctrine of this verse. The one is in the Book of Pro 8:22-31. The other is in Zechariah 13:7. The passage in Proverbs seems intended to explain the verse before us. The passage in Zechariah contains an expression which is almost a parallel to the expression "with God." "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD." "The man that is my fellow," according to the best commentators, means the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and a reference to Poole's Synopsis will show that the words signify "the man that is near me, or joined to me." Arrowsmith says, "Ask the sun, if ever it were without its beams. Ask the fountain, if ever it were without its streams. So God was never without His Son." We must not suppose that the repetition of this second verse is useless or unmeaning. Arrowsmith remarks that "Repetitions have divers uses in Scripture. In prayer they argue affection. In prophecy they note celerity and certainty. In threatenings they note unavoidableness and suddenness. In precepts they note a necessity of performing them. In truths, like that before us, they serve to show the necessity of believing and knowing them." v3.—[All things...made by him.] This sentence means that creation was the work of our Lord Jesus Christ, no less than of God the Father. "By him were all things created." (Colossians 1:16.) "Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth." (Hebrews 1:10.) Now He that made all things must needs be God. The expression, we must carefully remember, does not imply any inferiority of God the Son to God the Father, as if God the Son was only the agent and workman under another. Nor yet does it imply that creation was in no sense the work of God the Father, and that He is not the maker of heaven and earth. But it does imply that such is the dignity of the eternal Word, that in creation as well as in every thing else, He co-operated with the Father. "What things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19.) "By whom also He made the worlds." (Hebrews 1:2.) When we read the expression "by me kings reign," (Proverbs 8:15,) we do not for a moment suppose, that kings are superior in dignity to Him by whom they reign. Jansenius remarks that this verse completely overthrows the heretical notion entertained by the Manichees that the material world was formed by an evil spirit, as well as the notion of the Platonic school that some part of creation was made by angels and demons. [Without him was not anything made, &c.] This sentence appears added, to show the utter impossibility of our Lord Jesus Christ being no more than a created being. If not even the slightest thing was created without Him, it is plain that He cannot possibly be a creature Himself. The fathers raised curious speculations about the origin of evil from the expression now before us. "If nothing was made without Christ," they argued, "from whence came sin?" The simplest answer to this question is, that sin was not among the things which were originally created at the beginning. It came in afterwards, at the fall, "By one man sin entered into the world." (Romans 5:12.) That it could not have entered without divine permission, and that its entrance has been overruled to the display of divine mercy in redemption, are undeniable truths. But we have no right to say that sin was among the "all things," which were "made by Christ." v4.—[In Him was life.] This sentence means that in the eternal counsels of the Trinity, Christ was appointed to be the source, fountain, origin, and cause of life. From Him all life was to flow. As to the kind of " life" which is here meant, there is much difference of opinion among commentators. Some think as Cyril, Theophylact, Chemnitius, and Calvin, that the expression refers specially to the continued preservation of all created things by Christ's providence. Having created all things, He keeps all alive and in order. Some think as Zwingle, Cartwright, Arrowsmith, Poole, Alford, and most modern commentators, that the expression includes all sorts of life, both vegetable, animal, and spiritual. "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, and they are created." (Psalms 104:30.) "In Him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17:28.) Some think, as Luther, Melancthon, Brentius, Flacius, Lightfoot, Lampe, and Pearce, that the expression applies solely to spiritual life, and that it is meant to declare that Christ alone is the source of all life to the souls of men, whether in time or eternity. He was the creator of all things, and He also was the author of new creation. To this opinion I decidedly incline. For one thing, natural life seems already included in the preceding verse about creation. For another thing, it is the view which seems to agree best with the conclusion of the verse, and to be in harmony with the words, ''With thee is the fountain of life: in thy light we shall see light." "God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son." (Psalms 36:9; 1 John 5:11.) [The life was the light of men.] This sentence means that the life which was in Christ, was intended before the fall to be the guide of man's soul to heaven, and the supply of man's heart and conscience,— and that since the fall of man it has been the salvation and the comfort of all who have been saved. It is those and those only who have followed Christ as their light, who have lived before God and reached heaven. There has never been any spiritual life or light enjoyed by men, excepting from Christ. v5.—[The light shineth in darkness.] This sentence means that the spiritual light which Christ, the source of life, offers to man, has always been neglected since the fall, and is still neglected by unregenerate men. It has been like a candle shining in a dark place, a light in the middle of a world of darkness,— making the darkness more visible. Unregenerate men are darkness itself about spiritual things. "Ye were darkness." (Ephesians 5:8.) Arrowsmith remarks on this sentence, "Christ hath shined in all ages in the works of creation and providence. He left not Himself without witness. Every creature is a kind of professor that readeth man a lecture concerning God, of His wisdom, and power, and goodness." [The darkness comprehended it not.] This sentence means that the natural heart of man has always been so dark since the fall, that the great majority of mankind have neither understood, nor received, nor laid hold upon the light offered to them by Christ. The difference in the tenses of the two verbs used in this verse is very remarkable. About the "light" the present tense is used; "It shineth now as it has always shone; it is still shining."— About the "darkness" the past tense is used; "It has not comprehended the light; it never has comprehended it from the first, and does not comprehend it at the present day." The Greek word which we render "comprehended," is the same that is used in Ephesians 3:18. In Acts 4:13, it is translated "perceived,"— in Romans 9:30, "attained,"— in Philippians 3:13, "apprehend,"— in John 8:3, "taken,"— and in 1 Thessalonians 5:4, "overtake." At this point, the remark of Bengel upon the whole passage deserves attention. "In the first and second verses of this chapter, mention is made of a state before the creation of the world; in the third verse, the world's creation; in the fourth, the time of man's uprightness; in the fifth, the time of man's decline and fall." I cannot close these notes on the opening verses of John's Gospel without expressing my deep sense of the utter inability of any human commentator to enter fully into the vast and sublime truths which the passage contains. I have laboured to throw a little light on the passage, and have not hesitated to exceed the average length of these notes on account of the immense importance of this part of Scripture. But after saying all that I have said, I feel as if I had only faintly touched the surface of the passage. There is something here which nothing but the light of eternity will ever fully reveal. PREFACE— I SEND forth the volume now in the reader's hands, with much diffidence, and a very deep sense of responsibility. It is no light matter to publish an exposition of any book in the Bible. It is a peculiarly serious undertaking to attempt a Commentary on the Gospel of John. I do not forget that we are all apt to exaggerate the difficulties of our own particular department of literary labor. But I think every intelligent student of Scripture will bear me out when I say, that John's Gospel is pre-eminently full of things "hard to be understood." (2 Peter 3:16.) It contains a large portion of our Lord Jesus Christ's doctrinal teaching. It abounds in "deep things of God," and "sayings of the King," which we feel instinctively we have no line to fully fathom, no mind to fully comprehend, no words to fully explain. It must needs be that such a book of Scripture should be difficult. I can truly say that I have commented on many a verse in this Gospel with fear and trembling. I have often said to myself, "Who is sufficient for these things?"—"The place whereon thou standest is holy ground." (2 Corinthians 2:16; Exodus 3:5.) The nature of the work now published, requires a few words of explanation. It is a continuation of the "Expository Thoughts on the Gospels," of which four volumes, comprising the first three Gospels, have been already sent forth. Like the volumes on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the basis of the work is a continuous series of short expositions, intended for family or private reading, or for the use of those who visit the sick and the poor. But, unlike the previous volumes, the work now in the reader's hands contains full explanatory notes on every verse of the portions expounded, forming, in fact, a complete Commentary. This "Commentary is so extensive that it occupies far more space than the "Expository Thoughts," and is, I must honestly confess, the principal part of the work. To some it may appear far too long and full. But the circumstances of the times are my justification. [Footnote: The expectations of Bengel, the German commentator, appear likely to be fulfilled with curious accuracy in the present day. He said, in the year A. D. 1740,— "Though Socinianism and Popery at present appear mutually aloof, they will in process of time form a mighty confluence, that will burst all bounds, and bring everything to a crisis. We may expect it in the following way. The residue of heavenly influence on the professing Church, as a body, will have utterly evaporated, its holy things having been already more and more prostituted to the spirit of this world. The Holy Spirit being thus withdrawn from the camp at large, the world will deem its own victory and triumph secured. Now, therefore, a spirit of liberal Latitudinarianism will prevail everywhere,— a notion that every one may be right in his own way of thinking, and consequently that all is well with the Jew, the Turk, and the Pagan. Ideas of this kind will wonderfully prepare men for embracing the false prophet." (Life of Bengel, Walker's edition, page 322.) How painfully correct these prognostications, made 125 years ago, have proved, any one who observes the state of religious feeling in England must know only too well!] We live in a day of abounding vagueness and indistinctness on doctrinal subjects in religion. Now, if ever, it is the duty of all advocates of clear, well-defined, sharply-cut theology, to supply proof that their views are thoroughly borne out by Scripture. I have endeavored to do so in this Commentary. I hold that the Gospel of John, rightly interpreted, is the best and simplest answer to those who profess to admire a vague and indistinct Christianity. The theological stand-point which the writer of this Commentary occupies will be obvious to any intelligent reader. Such an one will see at a glance that I belong to that school in the Church of England which, rightly or wrongly, is called "Evangelical." He will see that I have no sympathy whatever with either Romish or Neologian tendencies. He will see that I hold firmly the distinctive theological views of the Reformers and doctrinal Puritans, and that I totally disapprove the loose and broad theology of some modern schools of divines.—But while I say all this, I must be allowed to add, that in interpreting Scripture, I "call no man master or father." I abhor the idea of wresting and warping God's Word in order to make it support party views. Throughout this Commentary I have endeavored honestly and conscientiously to find out the real meaning of every sentence on which I have commented. I have evaded no difficulty, and shrunk from no inference. I have simply followed Scripture wherever its words seemed to point, and accepted whatever they seemed to mean. I have never hesitated to express my disagreement from the views of other commentators if occasion required; but when I have done so I have tried to do it with courtesy and respect. On one point of vast importance in the present day, the reader will see that I hold very decided opinions. That point is inspiration. I feel no hesitation in avowing, that I believe in the "plenary inspiration" of every word of the original text of Holy Scripture. I hold not only that the Bible contains the Word of God, but that every jot of it was written, or brought together, by Divine inspiration, and is the Word of God. I entirely disagree with those who maintain that the writers of the Bible were partially inspired, or inspired to such a limited extent that discrepancies, inaccuracies, and contradictions to the facts of science and history, must be expected and do exist in their writings. I utterly repudiate such a theory. I consider that it practically destroys the whole value of God's Word, puts a sword in the hands of infidels and sceptics, and raises far more serious difficulties than it pretends to solve. I grant freely that the theory of "plenary verbal inspiration," involves some difficulties. I do not pretend to answer all the objections brought against it, or to defend all that has been written by its supporters. [Footnote: When I speak of "plenary verbal inspiration," I do not for a moment admit the absurd theory that all parts of the Bible are equally important. I should never dream of saying that the catalogues in Chronicles are of as much value to the Church as the Gospel of John. But I do maintain that all parts of the Bible are equally "given by inspiration of God," and that all are to be regarded as "God's Word." If we do not see the Divine character of any particular part, it is because we have at present no eyes to see it. The humblest moss is as much the handiwork of God's creative power as the cedar of Lebanon. Yet it would be foolish to say it was an equally important part of creation. The least verse in the Bible is just as truly "given by inspiration" as the greatest. But it does not follow that it is equally valuable.] I am content to remember that all inspiration is a miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost, and, like every operation of the Holy Ghost, must needs be mysterious. It is an operation of which not forty men in the world have been made the subjects, and the manner of which not one of the forty has described. It stands to reason that the whole question of inspiration, like everything else supernatural, must necessarily contain much that is mysterious, and much that we cannot explain.— But the difficulties of the "plenary verbal" theory appear to me mere trifles, compared with those which surround the counter theory of "partial inspiration." Once admit the principle that the writers of the Bible could make mistakes, and were not in all things guided by the Spirit, and I know not where I am. I see nothing certain, nothing solid, nothing trustworthy in the foundations of my faith. A fog has descended on the Book of God, and enveloped every chapter in uncertainty! Who shall decide when the writers of Scripture made mistakes, and when they did not? How am I to know where inspiration ends, and where it begins? What I think inspired, another may think uninspired! The texts that I rest upon, may possibly have been put in by a slip of the pen! The words and phrases that I love to feed upon, may possibly be weak earthly expressions in writing which the author was left to his own private uninspired mind!— The glory is departed from my Bible at this rate. A cold feeling of suspicion and doubt creeps over me as I read it. I am almost tempted to lay it down in flat despair. A partially inspired Bible is little better than no Bible at all. Give me the "plenary verbal" theory, with all its difficulties, rather than this. I accept the difficulties of that theory, and humbly wait for their solution. But while I wait, I feel that I am standing on a rock. I grant the existence of occasional difficulties, and apparent discrepancies, in Scripture. They are traceable, in some cases, I believe, to the errors of early transcribers; and in others to our ignorance of explanatory circumstances and minute links and details. To tell us that things cannot be explained, merely because we are not at present able to explain them, is childish and absurd! "He that believeth shall not make haste." (Isaiah 28:16.) A true philosopher will never give up a sound theory, on account of a few difficulties. He will rather say,— "I can afford to wait. It will all be plain one day." For my own part, I believe that the whole Bible, as it came originally from the hands of the inspired writers, was verbally perfect and without flaw. I believe that the inspired writers were infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost, both in their selection of matter and their choice of words. I believe that even now, when we cannot explain alleged difficulties in Holy Scripture, the wisest course is to blame the interpreter and not the text, to suspect our own ignorance to be in fault, and not any defect in God's Word. The theological system of modern days, which delights in magnifying the so-called mistakes of the Bible, in explaining away its miraculous narratives, and in making as little as possible of its Divine character and supernatural element, is a system that I cannot away with. It seems to me to take a rock from beneath our feet, and plant us on a quicksand. It robs us of bread, and does not give us in its place so much as a stone. Nothing, to my mind, is so unutterably painful as the patronizing tone of compassion which the modern advocates of "partial inspiration" adopt in speaking of the writers of the Bible. They write and talk as if Paul and John, and their companions, were nothing better than well-meaning pious men, who on some points were greatly mistaken, and far below our enlightened age! They speak with pity and contempt of that system of divinity which satisfied the master-builders and giants of the Church in by-gone days! They tell us complacently that a new theology is needed for our age, and that a "freer handling" of the Bible, with pens untrammelled by the fetters which cumbered former interpreters, will produce, and is producing, wonderful results! I thoroughly distrust these new theologians, however learned and plausible they may be, and I expect the Church will receive no light from them. I see nothing solid in their arguments, and am utterly unmoved by them. I believe that the want of our age is not more "free" handling of the Bible, but more "reverent" handling, more humility, more patient study, and more prayer. I repeat my own firm conviction, that no theory of inspiration involves so few difficulties as that of "plenary verbal inspiration." To that theory I entirely adhere, and on that theory my readers will find this Commentary is written. In preparing this Commentary I have made it a point of duty to look through every work on John's Gospel which I could meet with. I append a list of books, partly because it may be interesting and useful to some readers, and partly because I wish to show that when I differ from the authors, I have not written in ignorance of their opinions. The commentaries and expository works on John which I have looked through are the following:— I. Of Fathers. Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius, and the Catena Aurea. II. Of Foreign Reformers and their successors, to the close of the seventeenth century. Melancthon, Zwingle, Calvin, Ecolampadius, Brentius, Bucer, Bullinger, Gualter, Pellican, Flacius Illyricus, Musculus, Beza, Aretius, Chemnitius [Footnote: The work I here refer to is the Commentary on the "Harmony of the Gospels," begun by Chemnitius, and continued by Lyserus and Gerhard.], Diodati, Calovius, De Dieu, Cocceius, Gomarus, Nifanius, Heinsius, Glassius [Footnote: The work of Glassius to which I here refer, is his "Expositions of the Gospels and Epistles appointed for Sundays." It is a collection of Homilies.], Critici Sacri. III. Of Roman Catholic Writers. Rupertus, Feras, Arias Montanus, Toletus, Barradius, Maldonatus, Cornelius à Lapide, Jansenius, Quesnel. IV. Of Scotch and English Writers. Rollock, Hutcheson. Poole's Synopsis and Annotations, Cartwright, Trapp, Mayer, Leigh, Lightfoot, Baxter, Hammond, Hall, Henry, Burkitt, Whitby, Pearce, Gill, Scott, Bloomfield, Doddridge, A. Clarke, Barnes, Burgon, Alford, Webster, Wordsworth, J. Brown, D. Brown, Ford. To this list I may also add Arrowsmith, on John 1:1-51.; Dyke, on John 2:3.; Hildersam, on John 4:1-54; Trench, on Miracles; and Schottgen's Horæ Hebraicæ. V. Of German Writers, from the beginning of the eighteenth century to the present day. Lampe, Bengel, Tittman, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stier, Besser. Of course no man can spend years, as I have now done, in looking through this formidable mass of books, with out forming some decided opinions about the comparative merits of their respective authors. Some of these opinions I have no hesitation in putting down, as they may be of use to some of my younger brethren in the ministry. (A.) The Fathers appear to me greatly overrated, as commentators and expositors. Cyril and Chrysostom are far the most valuable of them, in my judgment, on John. (B.) The Continental Reformers and their successors appear to me greatly underrated and neglected. Brentius and Musculus, for instance, abound in excellent thoughts and suggestions, but seem quite ignored by most modern commentators. (C.) The Roman Catholic writers often contain much that is useful and little that is objectionable. Happy would it be for the Church of England if all her Clergy knew their Bibles as well as such men as Ferus and Toletus! (D.) The few German writers that I have consulted appear to me to be far too highly esteemed, with the exception of Bengel and Lampe. Stier is always reverential, but tremendously diffuse. As to Olshausen, Tholuck, and Tittman, I have generally laid down their works with unmixed disappointment. What people can mean by telling us that we-have much to learn from modern German writers on Scripture passes my comprehension!— I can only suppose, from my own acquaintance with them, that many say it without having read them, or without having read other expositors. (E.) The Scotch and English commentators I shall pass over in silence, as most of them are well known. I must confess that I think we have little to show in this department of Theological literature. Of our old writers, Rollock, the Scotch divine, is incomparably the best. In fact, I do not know such a "buried treasure" as his Latin commentary on John. [Footnote: Rollock was born A.D. 1555, and died A.D. 1598. He was principal of the University of Edinburgh.]— Of modern writers Burgon and Wordsworth strike me as two of the most valuable, though I differ widely from them on such points as the Church and the Sacraments. But I admire their reverential spirit.— Alford is almost always able and clear, but not always in my opinion a safe theological guide.— A thoroughly satisfactory critical commentary on the Greek Testament, in the English language, is a great desideratum. I have only to add that on all points of philology, grammar, etc., I have consulted Flacius, Ravanel, Parkhurst, Leigh, Schleusner, Raphelius, Suicer, Glassius, and Winer. The vexed question of "various readings," I have deliberately left alone. It is not because I have no opinion on the subject. But the real extent to which all the various readings would affect the meaning of Scripture, if they were admitted, is so much exaggerated, that it does not seem to me worth while to mix up the question with such a work as that which I have undertaken. The Greek text which I have been content to use throughout is that of the third Edition of Stephens (1550), edited by Scholefield. I do not say for a moment that it is the best text. I only say I have used it. The occasional short-comings of our authorized English translation I have not hesitated to notice. I have frequently pointed out expressions which in my judgment are not rendered so literally or accurately as they might have been. There is nothing perfect on earth. Our excellent translators undoubtedly fail occasionally to give the full sense of Greek words, and are not always sufficiently careful about tenses and the article. But it is useless to expect perfection in any translation. Translators are not inspired, and are all liable to err. The "plenary verbal inspiration" which I firmly maintain, is that of the original text of Scripture, and not of any translation.— I have no sympathy however with those who wish to have a new authorized English version of the Bible. I concede the short-comings of the old version, but judging by the specimens of "new and improved" versions which I have seen, I doubt much whether we should gain anything by attempting to mend it. Taking it for all in all, the authorized English version is an admirable translation. I am quite content to "let well alone." I now conclude this preface with an earnest prayer, that it may please God to pardon the many deficiencies of this volume, and to use it for His own glory and the good of souls. It has cost me a large amount of time and thought and labour. But if the Holy Ghost shall make it useful to the Church of Christ, I shall feel abundantly repaid. Ignorance of Scripture is the root of every error in religion, and the source of every heresy. To be allowed to remove a few grains of ignorance, and to throw a few rays of light on God's precious word, is, in my opinion, the greatest honour that can be put on a Christian. J. C. RYLE, B.A., CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD. Stradbroke Vicarage, Suffolk, February, 1865. P.S. I feel it due to many of my readers to offer some explanation of the long delay which has taken place since the publication of this work on John began. An interval of almost five years has elapsed between the publication of the first four chapters and of the fifth and sixth. This delay, I am afraid, has caused inconvenience and annoyance in many quarters. For this I am unfeignedly sorry. But the delay has been unavoidable, and has arisen from circumstances entirely beyond my own control. Deaths, domestic anxieties, illness, and change from one residence to another, have had much to do with it. The principal cause has been my removal to my present parish. The work was begun in a little quiet parish of 300 people. It has been resumed in a widely-scattered parish of 1400 people, requiring almost the whole of my attention. Even now, in sending forth the first volume of the "Expository Thoughts on John," I dare not promise anything certain as to the time when the work will be completed. I have the will to finish it, but I find it almost impossible to secure the necessary leisure. What absolute need there is of entire freedom from distraction and interruption in writing a Commentary, none know but those who have attempted it. What endless petty interruptions a clergyman must submit to in a poor rural parish of 1400 people, where there is no resident landlord, and no layman who has leisure, and where many things must necessarily hinge on the clergyman, no one can know unless he has filled the position. If the great Head of the Church intends me to finish this work, I believe that He will make my way plain, and remove all obstacles. But my readers must kindly make allowances for my altered position. There are but twelve hours in the day. I cannot create time. It is not one of the primary duties of a parochial clergyman's office to write Commentaries. If therefore the work does not go on so fast as they could wish, they must have the goodness to consider my position, and to believe that there is a cause. JOHN, after beginning his gospel with a statement of our Lord's nature as God, proceeds to speak of His forerunner, John the Baptist. The contrast between the language used about the Savior, and that used about His forerunner, ought not to be overlooked. Of Christ we are told that He was the eternal God,— the Creator of all things,— the source of life and light. Of John the Baptist we are told simply, that "there was a man sent from God, whose name was John." We see, firstly, in these verses, the true nature of a Christian minister's office. We have it in the description of John the Baptist: "He came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe." Christian ministers are not priests, nor mediators between God and man. They are not agents into whose hands men may commit their souls, and carry on their religion by deputy. They are witnesses. They are intended to bear testimony to God's truth, and specially to the great truth that Christ is the only Savior and light of the world. This was Peter's ministry on the day of Pentecost.— "With many other words did he testify." (Acts 2:40.) This was the whole tenor of Paul's ministry.— "He testified both to the Jews and Greeks repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:21.) Unless a Christian minister bears a full testimony to Christ, he is not faithful to his office. So long as he does testify of Christ, he has done his part, and will receive his reward, although his hearers may not believe his testimony. Until a minister's hearers believe on that Christ of whom they are told, they receive no benefit from the ministry. They may be pleased and interested; but they are not profited until they believe. The great end of a minister's testimony is "that through him, men may believe." We see, secondly, in these verses, one principal position which our Lord Jesus Christ occupies towards mankind. We have it in the words, "He was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Christ is to the souls of men what the sun is to the world. He is the center and source of all spiritual light, warmth, life, health, growth, beauty, and fertility. Like the sun, He shines for the common benefit of all mankind,— for high and for low, for rich and for poor, for Jew and for Greek. Like the sun, He is free to all. All may look at Him, and drink health out of His light. If millions of mankind were mad enough to dwell in caves underground, or to bandage their eyes, their darkness would be their own fault, and not the fault of the sun. So, likewise, if millions of men and women love spiritual "darkness rather than light," the blame must be laid on their blind hearts, and not on Christ. "Their foolish hearts are darkened." (John 3:19; Romans 1:21.) But whether men will see or not, Christ is the true sun, and the light of the world. There is no light for sinners except in the Lord Jesus. We see, thirdly, in these verses, the desperate wickedness of man's natural heart. We have it in the words, Christ "was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." Christ was in the world invisibly, long before He was born of the virgin Mary. He was there from the very beginning, ruling, ordering, and governing the whole creation. By Him all things consisted. (Colossians 1:17.) He gave to all life and breath, rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons. By Him kings reigned, and nations were increased or diminished. Yet men knew Him not, and honored Him not. They "worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator." (Romans 1:25.) Well may the natural heart be called "wicked"! But Christ came visibly into the world, when He was born at Bethlehem, and fared no better. He came to the very people whom He had brought out from Egypt, and purchased for His own. He came to the Jews, whom He had separated from other nations, and to whom He had revealed Himself by the prophets. He came to those very Jews who had read of Him in the Old Testament Scriptures,— seen Him under types and figures in their temple services,— and professed to be waiting for His coming. And yet, when He came, those very Jews received Him not. They even rejected Him, despised Him, and slew Him. Well may the natural heart be called "desperately wicked"! We see, lastly, in these verses, the vast privileges of all who receive Christ, and believe on Him. We are told that "as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name." Christ will never be without some servants. If the vast majority of the Jews did not receive Him as the Messiah, there were, at any rate, a few who did. To them He gave the privilege of being God's children. He adopted them as members of His Father's family. He reckoned them His own brethren and sisters, bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh. He conferred on them a dignity which was ample recompense for the cross which they had to carry for His sake. He made them sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. Privileges like these, be it remembered, are the possession of all, in every age, who receive Christ by faith, and follow Him as their Savior. They are "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:26.) They are born again by a new and heavenly birth, and adopted into the family of the King of kings. Few in number, and despised by the world as they are, they are cared for with infinite love by a Father in heaven, who, for His Son's sake, is well pleased with them. In time He provides them with everything that is for their good. In eternity He will give them a crown of glory that fadeth not away. These are great things! But faith in Christ gives men an ample title to them. Good masters care for their servants, and Christ cares for His. Are we ourselves sons of God? Have we been born again? Have we the marks which always accompany the new birth,— sense of sin, faith in Jesus, love of others, righteous living, separation from the world? Let us never be content till we can give a satisfactory answer to these questions. Do we desire to be sons of God? Then let us "receive Christ" as our Savior, and believe on Him with the heart. To every one that so receives Him, He will give the privilege of becoming a son of God. ================== Notes— v6.—[There was a man sent from God...John.] This is a short and striking description of John the Baptist. He was the messenger whom God promised to send before Messiah's face. He was born when his parents were aged, by God's miraculous interposition. He was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb. He received a special commission from God to preach the baptism of repentance, and to proclaim the immediate coming of Christ. In short, he was specially raised up by God to prepare the way for the Messiah. For all these reasons he is here called "a man sent from God." It is, in one sense, the common mark of all true ministers of the Gospel. Ignorant, blind, and unconverted ministers may be ordained and sent by man. But they are not "sent from God." v7.—[Came for a witness.] This does not mean, as it might at first sight appear, "came to be a witness." The Greek word which we translate "witness," does not mean "a person," but the testimony which a witness bears. [To bear witness of the light.] This means, to testify concerning Jesus Christ the light of the world, that He was the promised Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Bridegroom, the Almighty Saviour, to whom all dark souls ought to apply. [All men.] This cannot of course signify "all mankind." It means all who heard John's testimony, and all Jews who were really looking for a Redeemer. One end of John the Baptist's testimony was that all such should believe on Christ the true light. [Through him.] This does not mean "through Christ" and Christ's grace, but through John the Baptist and John's testimony. It is one of those texts which show the immense importance of the ministerial office. It is a means and instrument through which the Holy Spirit is pleased to produce faith in man's heart. "Faith cometh by hearing." Through John the Baptist's testimony, Andrew was led to believe in Jesus and become a disciple. Just so now, through the preaching of ministers sinners learn to believe on Christ and are saved. v8.—[He was not that light.] This expression would be more literally rendered, "He was not the light," the promised light of sinners, the light of the world. The Greek article "the," is used in a similar emphatic manner, to denote eminence and distinction, in the following passages. "That bread." John 6:32. "That prophet." John 1:21-25. "That day." 1 Thessalonians 5:4. "That way." Acts 9:2. Let it be noted that our Lord himself calls John the Baptist at a later period, "The burning and shining light." (John 5:35.) But it is a curious fact that the Greek word there rendered "light," is not the one used here. It is a word which is frequently translated "candle." John the Baptist was a "candle," but not the light itself. Believers are called "the light of the world." (Matthew 5:14,) but only as members of Christ the light, and borrowing light from him. Christ alone is the great sun and fountain of all light, the light itself. v9.—[That was the true light.] The force of the expression "true" in this sentence, is well brought out by Arrowsmith in his commentary on this verse. He says that Christ is "the true light" in four respects. Firstly, He is undeceiving light, the true light in opposition to all the false lights of the Gentiles.— Secondly, He is real light, true in opposition to ceremonial types and shadows.— Thirdly, He is underived light, true in opposition to all light that is borrowed, communicated, or participated from another.— Fourthly, He is supereminent light, true in opposition to all that is ordinary and common. [Which lighteth every man...cometh...world.] This sentence has caused much difference of opinion among commentators, in respect to two points. (a.) In the first place, men differ as to the application of the words, "that cometh into the world." Some connect these words with "the true light," and read the words, "this is the true light that coming into the world lighteth every man." In favour of this view, the words "light is come into the world," (John 3:19,) and "I am come a light into the world," (John 12:46,) deserve notice.— Others connect the words with "every man," and regard them as a sweeping description of every one naturally born of the seed of Adam. That "coming into the world " is a Hebrew phrase for being born, is shown by Nifanius. The construction of the whole verse in the original Greek, is such that either rendering is grammatical and correct. Opinions are so nicely balanced on this point, and so much may be said on either side, that I venture my own judgment with much hesitation. But I am inclined to think on the whole, with Chemnitius and Glassius, that our translators are right, and that the clause "that cometh into the world," is better connected with "every man" than with "the true light."— If the verse is rendered "this is the true light that coming into the world lighteth every man," it seems rather to narrow the blessing of the true light, and to confine his illumining benefits to the times after His incarnation. This, be it remembered, is precisely the view of the Socinian. And yet it is unquestionably true that Christ's incarnation increased greatly the spiritual light in the world. John says, "The darkness is past and the true light now shineth." (1 John 2:8.) If, on the other hand, the verse is rendered as our version has it, the words "that cometh into the world," seem very suitably joined to "every man," as expressing the universality of the blessings which Christ confers on man. He is not only the true light of the Jew, but of "every man that is born into the world," of every name, and people, and tongue. To suppose, as some have done, that this application of the words "come into the world," involves the preexistence of souls, is, to say the least, a foolish thought. The point is, happily, one on which men may agree to differ. Sound doctrine may be got out of either view. (b.) The second difference of opinion respecting this verse arises from the words, "lighteth every man." This expression has received widely different interpretations. All, except heretics, are agreed that the words cannot mean that all are converted, and cannot signify the final, universal salvation of all mankind. What then do they mean? Some think, as Cyril, that Christ "the true light," lighteth every man and woman on earth with the light of reason, intelligence, and consciousness of right and wrong. This view is partially true, and yet it seems weak and defective. Some think, as the Quakers are reported to do, that Christ lighteth every man and woman on earth with an inward light of grace, sufficient to save him, if he will only use it. This view is a dangerous one, and beside contradicting many texts of Scripture, leads on to downright Pelagianism. Some think, as Augustine, that Christ lighteth all that are lighted by His grace, and that "every man" is practically the same as every believer. They quote in support of this view, the verse, "The LORD upholdeth all that fall," (Psalms 145:14,) where "all" can only mean, "all those that are upheld are upheld by the Lord." A favourite illustration of this view is the saying, that a schoolmaster "teaches all the boys in a town," that is, "all who are taught are taught by him." This interpretation, however, is not thoroughly satisfactory, and has an appearance of quibbling and unfairness about it. Some think, as Chrysostom, and Brentius in his Homilies, and Lightfoot, that Christ is really given to be the light of all mankind. They think that when it is said, He "lighteth every man," it means that He shines sufficiently for the salvation of all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, (like the sun shining upon all creation,) though the majority of men are so blinded by sin that they do not see Him. Yet Christ is for every man. "He lighteth all," says Chrysostom, "as far as in Him lies."— "There is power and good will in the light," says Chemnitius, "to illumine all; but some love darkness rather than light." Arrowsmith says, "Christ doth dispense to every one light sufficient to leave him without excuse. But Christ doth not dispense to every one converting light sufficient to bring him to salvation." I believe this last view to be the most probable one, though I confess that it is not unattended by difficulties. But I rest in the conclusion that Christ is offered as a light to all the world, and that every one born into the world will prove at last to have been in some way indebted to Christ, even though not saved. Pearce says of the Greek word rendered "lighteth," that, "in the Hebrew tongue that which is only intended to be done is often expressed as a thing actually done." He regards this expression before us as a similar one. He gives, as parallel instances, 1 Corinthians 10:33, "please," for "intend to please," Galatians 5:4, "justified," for "intend to be justified," and 1 John 2:26, "seduce," for "intend to seduce." The Greek word rendered "lighteth" is used eleven times in the New Testament, and is translated "to give light, to light, to bring to light, to enlighten, to illuminate." v10.—[He was in the world, &c...knew him not.] This verse describes the unbelief of the whole world before Christ's incarnation. He "was in the world" invisibly, before He was born of the virgin Mary, as in the days of Noah. (1 Peter 3:19.) He was to be seen in His works and in His providential government of all things, if men had only had eyes to see Him. And yet the very world which He had made, the work of his hands, did not acknowledge, believe, or obey Him. It knew Him not. At Athens, Paul found an altar "to the unknown God." That the expression applies to Christ before His incarnation, and not after, is said by Lampe to be the unanimous opinion of Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, Beda, Theophylact, and Euthymius. There is a striking similarity between the declaration of this Terse and the contents of the latter part of the 1st chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. In fact the line of argument by which Paul shows the Gentiles to be guilty, in the first chapter of that epistle, and the Jews to be equally guilty and excuseless in the second chapter, is only a full exposition of what John here states briefly in two verses. v11.—[He came unto his own...received him not.] This verse describes the unbelief of the Jewish nation after the incarnation of Christ, and during His ministry among them. He came to a people who were peculiarly His own, by their redemption from Egypt, by their introduction into the land of Canaan, and by their possession of the law of Moses, and the covenants, and yet they did not believe on Him, or receive Him, but actually rejected and slew Him. There is a peculiarity about the Greek words rendered "his own," in this verse, which ought not to be overlooked. The first "his own" is in the neuter gender, and means literally "his own things." The second "his own" is in the masculine gender, and means "his own men, servants or subjects." It is probably meant to show that our Lord came to a people whose land, territory, cities, temple, were all His own property, and had been originally granted by Himself. The Jews, Palestine, Jerusalem, the temple, were all Christ's peculiar possession. Israel was "His inheritance." (Psalms 78:71.)— This made the sin of those who "received Him not," even more sinful. v12.—[As many as received Him.] This expression signifies, "as many as believed on Christ, and acknowledged Him as the Messiah." It is only another form of the expression at the end of the verse, "believed on His name." To receive Christ is to accept Him with a willing heart, and to take Him as our Saviour. It is one of many forms of speech, by which that justifying faith which unites the sinner's soul to Christ is expressed in the Bible. To believe on Christ with the heart, is to receive Him, and to receive Him is to believe on Him.— Paul says to the Colossians, "As ye have received Christ, so walk ye in Him." (Colossians 2:6.) The Greek word rendered, "As many as," is literally, "whosoever," "whatsoever persons." Glassius remarks, that the expression denotes the universality of the benefits which Christ conferred. "Whosoever" received Him, Pharisees, Sadducees, learned or unlearned, male or fi-male, Jews or Gentiles, to them He gave the privilege of sonship to God. [To them gave he power to become the sons of God.] This expression means, "He gave them the privilege of adoption into God's family." They became the "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:26.) "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." (1 John 5:1.) There is no sonship to God without living faith in Christ. Let this never be forgotten. To talk of God being men's Father, and men being God's children, while they do not believe on the Son of God, is contrary to Scripture. Those are not children of God who have not faith in Jesus. The word "power" in this sentence requires careful guarding against misrepresentation. It means, as the marginal reading says, "right or privilege." It does not mean strength or ability. It does not mean that Christ confers on those who receive Him a spiritual and moral strength, by which they convert themselves, change their own hearts, and make themselves God's children. No doubt Christ gives to all His people all needful grace to supply all the wants of their hearts, and the necessities of their position. No doubt He gives them strength to carry the cross, fight the good fight, and overcome the world. But that is not the truth taught in the words before us, and must be sought in other places. The words before us only mean that Christ confers the privilege of adoption on all believers, and did so especially on His first disciples. While their unbelieving fellow-countrymen were boasting of being children of Abraham, Christ gave His disciples the far higher privilege of being children of God. The Greek word rendered "power" is used 102 times in the New Testament, and never on one occasion in the sense of physical, moral, or spiritual strength to do a thing. It is generally translated, "authority, right, power, liberty, jurisdiction." [To them that believe on His name.] These words are added to make clearer, if possible, the character of those who have the privilege of being sons of God. They are they who receive Christ and believe on His name. Arrowsmith remarks, "The word 'name,' in the Scripture, is often put for person. The receivers of Christ are said to believe on His name, because the direct object of their faith is the person of Christ. It is not the believing that Christ died for all, or for me, or for the elect, or any such proposition, that saveth. It is believing on Christ. The person, or name of Christ, is the object of faith." The expression, "believe on His name," ought not to be overlooked. Arrowsmith remarks that there is a known distinction amongst divines, between believing God, that there is such a Being,— believing God, that what He says is true,— and believing on God in the way of faith and confidence as our God. And he observes, most truly, that precisely the same distinction exists between faith that there is such a Saviour as Christ,— faith that what Christ says is true,— and faith of reliance on Christ as our Saviour. Believing on Christ's name is exactly this faith of reliance, and is the faith that saves and justifies. v13.—[Which were born, &c., &c...of God.] The birth here spoken of is the new birth, or regeneration, that complete change of heart and nature which takes place in a man when he becomes a real Christian. It is a change so great that no other figure but that of birth can fully express it. It is as when a new being, with new appetites, wants, and desires is brought into the world. A person born of God is "a new creature, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new." (2 Corinthians 5:17.) The persons who believe on Christ's name are said to be born "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." The interpretation of this expression which is usually given by commentators appears to me neither correct nor seemly. The true meaning of the words, I believe, is this. Believers did not become what they are "by blood," that is by descent from Abraham or blood connection with godly people. "Grace does not descend from parent to child.— Nor yet did believers become what they are by the will of the flesh,— that is by the efforts and exertions of their own natural hearts. Nature can never change itself. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh."— Nor yet did believers become what they are by the will of man,— that is by the acts and deeds of others. Neither ordained ministers, nor any one else, can confer grace upon another. Man cannot regenerate hearts.— Believers become what they are solely and entirely by the grace of God. It is to God's free grace, preventing, calling, converting, renewing and sanctifying, that they owe their new birth. They are born of God, or, as the third chapter says more distinctly, "born of the Spirit." The word which we render "blood," in the singular number, is, in the Greek, plural, "bloods."— This peculiarity has made some conjecture that the expression refers to the blood shed in circumcision and sacrifice, and teaches the inability of these things to regenerate man. But this idea seems far-fetched and improbable. The use of the plural number appears to me intended to exclude all fleshly confidence in any descent or relationship. It was neither the blood of Abraham, or of David, or of Aaron, or of Judah, or of Levi, which could give grace or make any one a child of God. This is the first time the new birth is spoken of by name in Scripture. Let us not fail to notice how carefully the doctrine is fenced against errors, and how emphatically we are told what this new birth does not come from, as well as what it does come from. It is a striking fact that when Peter mentions the new birth, he fences it in like manner, (1 Peter 1:23,) and when he speaks of baptism "saving" us, he carefully adds that it is "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh." (1 Peter 3:21.) In the face of all these cautions, it is curious to observe the pertinacity with which many overthrow the whole doctrine of the new birth by the assertion that all baptized persons are born again! We must be careful that we do not interpret the words "which were born" as if the new birth was a change which takes place in a man after he has believed in Christ, and is the next step after faith. Saving faith and regeneration are inseparable. The moment that a man really believes in Christ, however feebly, he is born of God. The weakness of his faith may make him unconscious of the change, just as a new-born infant knows little or nothing about itself. But where there is faith there is always new birth, and where there is no faith there is no regeneration. THE passage of Scripture now before us is very short, if we measure it by words. But it is very long, if we measure it by the nature of its contents. The substance of it is so immensely important that we shall do well to give it separate and distinct consideration. This single verse contains more than enough matter for a whole exposition. The main truth which this verse teaches is the reality of our Lord Jesus Christ's incarnation, or being made man. John tells us that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The plain meaning of these words is, that our divine Savior really took human nature upon Him, in order to save sinners. He really became a man like ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. Like ourselves, he was born of a woman, though born [conceived] in a miraculous manner. Like ourselves, He grew from infancy to boyhood, and from boyhood to man's estate, both in wisdom and in stature. (Luke 2:52.) Like ourselves, he hungered, thirsted, ate, drank, slept, was wearied, felt pain, wept, rejoiced, marveled, was moved to anger and compassion. Having become flesh, and taken a body, He prayed, read the Scriptures, suffered being tempted, and submitted His human will to the will of God the Father. And finally, in the same body, He really suffered and shed His blood, really died, was really buried, really rose again, and really ascended up into heaven. And yet all this time He was God as well as man! This union of two natures in Christ's one Person is doubtless one of the greatest mysteries of the Christian religion. It needs to be carefully stated. It is just one of those great truths which are not meant to be curiously pried into, but to be reverently believed. Nowhere, perhaps, shall we find a more wise and judicious statement than in the second article of the Church of England. "The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and the manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man." This is a most valuable declaration. This is "sound speech, which cannot be condemned." But while we do not pretend to explain the union of two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ's Person, we must not hesitate to fence the subject with well-defined cautions. While we state most carefully what we do believe, we must not shrink from declaring boldly what we do not believe. We must never forget, that though our Lord was God and man at the same time, the divine and human natures in Him were never confounded. One nature did not swallow up the other. The two natures remained perfect and distinct. The divinity of Christ was never for a moment laid aside, although veiled. The manhood of Christ, during His life-time, was never for a moment unlike our own, though by union with the Godhead, greatly dignified. Though perfect God, Christ has always been perfect man from the first moment of His incarnation. He that is gone into heaven, and is sitting at the Father's right hand to intercede for sinners, is man as well as God. Though perfect man, Christ never ceased to be perfect God. He that suffered for sin on the cross, and was made sin for us, was "God manifest in the flesh." The blood with which the Church was purchased, is called the blood "of God." (Acts 20:28.) Though He became "flesh" in the fullest sense, when He was born of the virgin Mary, He never at any period ceased to be the Eternal Word. To say that He constantly manifested His divine nature during His earthly ministry, would, of course, be contrary to plain facts. To attempt to explain why His Godhead was sometimes veiled and at other times unveiled, while He was on earth, would be venturing on ground which we had better leave alone. But to say that at any instant of His earthly ministry He was not fully and entirely God, is nothing less than heresy. The cautions just given may seem at first sight needless, wearisome, and hair-splitting. It is precisely the neglect of such cautions which ruins many souls. This constant undivided union of two perfect natures in Christ's Person is exactly that which gives infinite value to His mediation, and qualifies Him to be the very Mediator that sinners need. Our Mediator is One who can sympathize with us, because He is very man. And yet, at the same time, He is One who can deal with the Father for us on equal terms, because He is very God.— It is the same union which gives infinite value to His righteousness, when imputed to believers. It is the righteousness of One who was God as well as man.— It is the same union which gives infinite value to the atoning blood which He shed for sinners on the cross. It is the blood of One who was God as well as man.— It is the same union which gives infinite value to His resurrection. When He rose again, as the Head of the body of believers, He rose not as a mere man, but as God.— Let these things sink deeply into our hearts. The second Adam is far greater than the first Adam was. The first Adam was only man, and so he fell. The second Adam was God as well as man, and so He completely conquered. Let us leave the subject with feelings of deep gratitude and thankfulness. It is full of abounding consolation for all who know Christ by faith, and believe on Him. Did the Word become flesh? Then He is One who can be touched with the feeling of His people's infirmities, because He has suffered Himself, being tempted. He is almighty because He is God, and yet He can feel with us, because He is man. Did the Word become flesh? Then He can supply us with a perfect pattern and example for our daily life. Had he walked among us as an angel or a spirit, we could never have copied Him. But having dwelt among us as a man, we know that the true standard of holiness is to "walk even as He walked." (1 John 2:6.) He is a perfect pattern, because He is God. But He is also a pattern exactly suited to our wants, because He is man. Finally, did the Word become flesh? Then let us see in our mortal bodies a real, true dignity, and not defile them by sin. Vile and weak as our body may seem, it is a body which the Eternal Son of God was not ashamed to take upon Himself, and to take up to heaven. That simple fact is a pledge that He will raise our bodies at the last day, and glorify them together with His own. ================== Notes— v14.—[And the word was made flesh.] This sentence means that the eternal Word of God, the second Person in the Trinity, became a man, like one of ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. This He accomplished, by being born of the virgin Mary, after a miraculous manner, through the operation of the Holy Ghost. And the end for which He became flesh, was that He might live and die for sinners. The expression "the 'Word," shows clearly that "the Word" who "was with God and was God," must be a Person. It could not reasonably be said of any one but a Person, that He became "flesh and dwelt among us.'' Whether John could have found any other name for the second Person of the Trinity equally proper, we need not trouble ourselves to inquire. It certainly would not have been accurately correct to say that "Jesus was made flesh," because the name Jesus was not given to our Lord till after His incarnation. Nor yet would it have been correct to say, "In the beginning was Christ," because the name Christ belongs to the times after the fall of man. This is the last time that John uses this expression, "The Word," about Christ in his Gospel. From the time of His incarnation he generally speaks of Him as "Jesus," or "the Lord." [Was made.] This expression might perhaps have been better translated "became." At any rate, we must carefully remember that it does not signify "was created." The Athanasian Creed says truly, "The Son is of the Father alone, neither made nor created, but begotten." [Flesh.] The use of this word, instead of "man," ought not to be overlooked. It is purposely used in order to show us that when our Lord became incarnate, He took upon Him nothing less than our whole nature, consisting of a true body and a reasonable soul. As Arrowsmith says, "That which was not taken could not be healed. If Christ had not taken the whole man, He could not have saved the soul."— It also implies that our Lord took upon Him a body liable to those weaknesses, fatigues, and pains, which are inseparable from the idea of flesh. He did not become a man like Adam before the fall, with a nature free from all infirmity. He became a man like anyone of Adam's children, with a nature liable to every thing that fallen humanity is liable to, except sin. He was made "flesh," and "all flesh is grass."— Finally, it teaches that our Lord did not assume the human nature of any one family, or class, or people, but that nature which is common to all Adam's children, whether Jews or Gentiles. He came to be a Saviour for "all flesh," and so was made "flesh." The subject of this sentence is a deeply mysterious one, but one about which it is most important to have clear views. Next to the doctrine of the Trinity, there is no doctrine on which fallen man has built so many deadly heresies as the incarnation of Christ. There is unquestionably much about this union of two natures in one person which we cannot explain, and must be content to believe. There is much that we cannot understand, be it remembered, in the union of body and soul in our own persons. But there are some points in the subject of Christ's incarnation which we must hold fast, and never let go. (a.) In the first place, let us carefully remember, that when "the Word became flesh," He became so by the union of two perfect and distinct natures in one Person. The manner of this union we cannot explain, but the fact we must firmly believe. "Christ," says the Athanasian Creed, "is God and Man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the world, and man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man. Who, although He be God and man, yet He is not two but one Christ; one not by conversion of the godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God." These words are very important. The Word was not made flesh by changing one nature into another, or by laying aside one nature and taking up another. In all our thoughts about Christ, let us take care that we do not divide His Person, and that we maintain steadily that He has two distinct and perfect natures. The old Latin line on the subject, quoted by Gomarus, is worth remembering. It represents "the Word made flesh," as saying, "I am what I was, that is God:— I was not what I am, that is man:— I am now called both, that is both God and man." (b.) Secondly, when "the Word became flesh," He did not cease for a moment to be God. No doubt He was pleased to veil His divinity and to hide His power, and more especially so at some seasons. He emptied Himself of external marks of glory and was called "the carpenter." But He never laid His divinity aside. God cannot cease to be God. It was as God-man that He lived, suffered, died, and rose again. It is written that God ''has purchased the Church with His own blood." It was the blood of one who was not man only, but God. (c.) Thirdly, when "the Word became flesh," He was made a man in the truth of our nature like unto us in all things, and from that hour has never ceased to be man. His humanity was not a humanity different from our own, and though now glorified is our humanity still. It was perfect man no less than perfect God, who resisted temptation, fulfilled the law perfectly, endured the contradiction of sinners, spent nights in prayer, kept His will in subjection to the Father's will, suffered, died, and at length ascended up to heaven with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to man's nature. It is written, that in "all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren." Moreover, He did not lay aside His humanity when He left the world. He that ascended up on the mount of Olives, and is sitting at the right hand of God to intercede for believers, is one who is still man as well as God. Our High Priest in heaven is not God only, but man. Christ's humanity as well as divinity are both in heaven. One in our nature, our elder Brother has gone as our Forerunner to prepare a place for us. (d.) Lastly, when "the Word became flesh," He did not take on Him "peccable flesh." It is written that He was made in "the likeness of sinful flesh." (Romans 8:3.) But we must not go beyond this. Christ was "made sin for us." (2 Corinthians 5:21.) But He "knew no sin," and was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and without taint of corruption. Satan found nothing in Him. Christ's human nature was liable to weakness, but not to sin. The words of the fifteenth Article must never be forgotten, Christ was "void from sin, both in His flesh and in His Spirit." For want of a clear understanding of this union of two natures in Christ's Person, the heresies which arose in the early Church were many and great. And yet Arrowsmith points out that no less than four of these heresies are at once confuted by a right interpretation of the sentence now before us. "The Arians hold that Jesus Christ was not true God. This text calleth Him the Word, and maketh Him a Person in the Trinity. "The Apollinarians acknowledge Christ to be God, yea, and man too; but they hold that He took only the body of a man, not the soul of a man, while His divinity supplied the room of a soul. We interpret the word 'flesh' for the whole human nature, both soul and body. "The Nestorians grant Christ to be both God and man: but then they say the Godhead made one person, and the manhood another person. We interpret the words 'was made' as implying an union, in which Christ assumed not the person of man, but the nature of man. "The Eutychians held but one person in Christ; but then they confounded the natures. They say the Godhead and manhood made such a mixture as to produce a third thing. Here they also are confuted by the right understanding of the union between the Word and flesh." He then goes on to show how the ancient Church met all these heretics with four adverbs, which briefly and conveniently defined the union of two natures in Christ's person. They said that the divine and human natures when "the Word was made flesh," were united truly, to oppose the Arians,—perfectly, to oppose the Apollinarians,—undividedly, to oppose the Nestorians,— and unmixedly, to oppose the Eutychians. Those who wish to examine this subject further, will do well to consult Pearson on the Creed, Dods on the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, and Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, B. v., chap. 51, 52, 53, 54. [Dwelt among us.] The Greek word rendered dwelt, means literally "tabernacled," or "dwelt in a tent." The sentence does not mean that Christ dwelt in His human body as in a tabernacle, which He left when He ascended up to heaven. "Christ," says Arrowsmith, "continueth now, and shall for ever, as true man as when He was born of the virgin Mary.— He so took human nature as never to lay it down again." The sentence only means that Christ dwelt among men on earth for thirty-three years. He was on earth so long conversing among men, that there could be no doubt of the reality of His incarnation. He did not appear for a few minutes, like a phantom or ghost. He did not come down for a brief visit of a few days, but was living among us in His human body for the duration of a whole generation of men. For thirty-three years He pitched His tent in Palestine, and was going to and fro among its inhabitants. Arrowsmith remarks that three sorts of men are described in the Bible as living in tents; shepherds, sojourners, and soldiers. He thinks that the phrase here used has reference to the calling of all these three, and that it points to Christ's life on earth being that of a shepherd, a traveller, and a soldier. But it may be doubted whether this is not a somewhat fanciful idea, however pleasing and true. The Greek word rendered "dwelt" is only used in four other places in the New Testament, (Revelation 7:15; Revelation 12:12; Revelation 13:6; Revelation 21:3,) and in each of them is applied to a permanent, and not a temporary dwelling. [We beheld his glory.] John here declares, that although "the Word was made flesh," he and others beheld from time to time His glory, and saw manifest proof that He was not man only, but the "only begotten Son of God." There is a difference of opinion among commentators as to the right application of these words. Some think that they apply to Christ's ascension, which John witnessed, and to all His miraculous actions throughout His ministry, in all of which, as it is said of the miracle of Cana, He "manifested forth his glory," and His disciples saw it.— Others think that they apply especially to our Lord's transfiguration, when He put on for a little season His glory, in the presence of John, James, and Peter. I am on the whole inclined to think that this is the true view, and the more so, because of Peter's words in speaking of the transfiguration, (2 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:18,) and the words which immediately follow in the verse we are now considering. [The glory as of the only begotten of the Father.] This sentence means "such glory as became and was suitable to one who is the only begotten Son of God the Father." These words will hardly apply to Christ's miracles. They seem to confine the glory which John says "we beheld," to the vision of glory which he and his two companions saw when Christ was transfigured, and they heard the Father saying, "This is my beloved Son." Lightfoot's paraphrase of this expression is worth reading though he does not apply the passage to the transfiguration: "We saw His glory as what was worthy, as became, the only begotten Son of God. He did not glisten in any worldly pomp or grandeur, according to what the Jewish nation fondly dreamed their Messiah would do. But He was dressed with the glory of holiness, grace, truth, and the power of miracles." We must carefully remember that the adverb "as" in this place, does not imply comparison, or similitude, as if John only meant that the Word's glory was like that of the only begotten Son of God. Chrysostom says, "The expression 'as' in this place does not belong to similarity or comparison, but to confirmation and unquestionable definition, as though he said, we beheld glory such as it was becoming and likely that He should possess, who is the only begotten and true Son of God and King of all." He also remarks that it is a common manner of speaking, when people are describing the appearance of a king in state, to say that "he was like a king," meaning only that he was a real king. Glassius, in his Philologia, makes the same comment on the expression, and quotes as parallel cases of the use of the adverb "as," 2 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 1:19; Philemon 1:9; Romans 9:32; Matthew 14:5; 2 Corinthians 3:18. He thinks it a Hebraism, denoting not the similitude, but the reality and truth of a thing, and quotes Psalms 122:3, and Hosea 4:4, as Old Testament instances. [The only begotten of the Father.] This remarkable expression describes our Lord's eternal generation, or Sonship. He is that Person who alone has been begotten of the Father from all eternity, and from all eternity has been His beloved Son. The phrase is only used five times in the New Testament, and only in John's writings. That God always had a Son appears in the Old Testament. "What is his son's name," says Agur. (Proverbs 30:4.) So also the Father says to Messiah, "Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7.) But the Sonship now before us, we must carefully remember, is not to be dated from any "day." It is the everlasting Sonship of which John speaks. The subject is one of those which we must be content to believe and reverence, but must not attempt to define too narrowly. We are taught distinctly in Scripture that in the unity of the Godhead, there are three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We are taught, with equal distinctness, that "Sonship" describes the everlasting relation which exists between the first and second Persons in the Trinity, an that Christ is the only begotten and eternal Son of God. We are taught, with equal distinctness, that the Father loveth the Son, and loved Him before the foundation of the world. (John 17:24.) But here we must be content to pause. Our feeble faculties could not comprehend more if more were told us. Let us however remember carefully, when we think of Christ as the only begotten Son of the Father, that we must not attach the least idea of inferiority to the idea of His Sonship. As the Athanasian creed says, "The Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son." And yet the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. The argument of the ancient Arians, that if Christ is the Son of God, he must necessarily be inferior in dignity to God, and subsequent in existence to God, is one that will not stand for a moment. The reply is simple. We are not talking of the relationship of mortal beings, but of the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity, who are eternal. All analogies and illustrations drawn from human parents and children are necessarily defective. As Augustine said, so must we say, "Show me and explain to me an eternal Father, and I will show you and explain to you an eternal Son." We must believe and not try to explain. Christ's generation, as God, is eternal,— who shall declare it? He was begotten from everlasting of the Father. He was always the beloved Son. And yet "He is equal to the Father as touching his godhead, though inferior to Him as touching his manhood." [Full of grace and truth.] These words do not refer to the Father, though they follow His name so closely. They belong to "the Word." The meaning of them is differently explained. Some think that they describe our Lord Jesus Christ's character, during the time that He was upon the earth, in general terms. Full of grace were His lips, and full of grace was His life. He was full of the grace of God, the Spirit dwelling in Him without measure, full of kindness, love, and favour to man;— full of truth in His deeds and words, for in His lips was no guile, full of truth in His preaching concerning God the Father's love to sinners, and the way of salvation, for He was ever unfolding in rich abundance all truths that man can need to know for his soul's good. Some think that the words describe especially the spiritual riches that Christ brought into the world, when He became incarnate, and set up His kingdom. He came full of the gospel of grace, in contradistinction to the burdensome requirements of the ceremonial law. He came full of truth, of real, true, solid comfort, in contradistinction to the types, and figures, and shadows of the law of Moses. In short the full grace of God, and the full truth about the way of acceptance, were never clearly seen until the Word became flesh, dwelt among us on earth, opened the treasure-house, and revealed grace and truth in His own person. I decidedly prefer the second of these two views. The first is truth, but not the truth of the passage. The second appears to me to harmonize with the 17th verse, which follows almost immediately, where the law and the gospel are contrasted, and we are told that "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." THE passage before us contains three great declarations about our Lord Jesus Christ. Each of the three is among the foundation principles of Christianity. We are taught, firstly, that it is Christ alone who supplies all the spiritual wants of all believers. It is written that "of his fullness have we all received, and grace for grace." There is an infinite fullness in Jesus Christ. As Paul says, "It pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell."— "In Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 1:19; Colossians 2:3.) There is laid up in Him, as in a treasury, a boundless supply of all that any sinner can need, either in time or eternity. The Spirit of Life is His special gift to the Church, and conveys from Him, as from a great root, sap and vigor to all the believing branches. He is rich in mercy, grace, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Out of Christ's fullness, all believers in every age of the world, have been supplied. They did not clearly understand the fountain from which their supplies flowed, in Old Testament times. The Old Testament saints only saw Christ afar off, and not face to face. But from Abel downwards, all saved souls have received all they have had from Jesus Christ alone. Every saint in glory will at last acknowledge that he is Christ's debtor for all he is. Jesus will prove to have been all in all. We are taught, secondly, the vast superiority of Christ to Moses, and of the Gospel to the Law. It is written that "the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Moses was employed by God "as a servant," to convey to Israel the moral and ceremonial law. (Hebrews 3:5.) As a servant, he was faithful to Him who appointed him, but he was only a servant. The moral law, which he brought down from Mount Sinai, was holy, and just, and good. But it could not justify. It had no healing power. It could wound, but it could not bind up. It "worked wrath." (Romans 4:15.) It pronounced a curse against any imperfect obedience.— The ceremonial law, which he was commanded to impose on Israel, was full of deep meaning and typical instruction. Its ordinances and ceremonies made it an excellent schoolmaster to guide men toward Christ. (Galatians 3:24.) But the ceremonial law was only a schoolmaster. It could not make him that kept it perfect, as pertaining to the conscience. (Hebrews 9:9.) It laid a grievous yoke on men's hearts, which they were not able to bear. It was a ministration of death and condemnation. (2 Corinthians 3:7-9.) The light which men got from Moses and the law was at best only starlight compared to noon-day. Christ, on the other hand, came into the world "as a Son," with the keys of God's treasury of grace and truth entirely in His hands. (Hebrews 3:6.) Grace came by Him, when He made fully known God's gracious plan of salvation, by faith in His own blood, and opened the fountain of mercy to all the world.— Truth came by Him, when He fulfilled in His own Person the types of the Old Testament, and revealed Himself as the true Sacrifice, the true mercy-seat, and the true Priest. No doubt there was much of "grace and truth" under the law of Moses. But the whole of God's grace, and the whole truth about redemption, were never known until Jesus came into the world, and died for sinners. We are taught, thirdly, that it is Christ alone who has revealed God the Father to man. It is written that "no man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." The eye of mortal man has never beheld God the Father. No man could bear the sight. Even to Moses it was said, "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Exodus 33:20.) Yet all that mortal man is capable of knowing about God the Father is fully revealed to us by God the Son. He, who was in the bosom of the Father from all eternity, has been pleased to take our nature upon Him, and to exhibit to us in the form of man, all that our minds can comprehend of the Father's perfections. In Christ's words, and deeds, and life, and death, we learn as much concerning God the Father as our feeble minds can at present bear. His perfect wisdom,— His almighty power,— His unspeakable love to sinners,— His incomparable holiness,— His hatred of sin, could never be represented to our eyes more clearly than we see them in Christ's life and death. In truth, "God was manifest in the flesh," when the Word took on Him a body. "He was the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person." He says Himself, "I and my Father are one." "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9.) These are deep and mysterious things. But they are true. (1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:3; John 10:30; John 14:9.) And now, after reading this passage, can we ever give too much honor to Christ? Can we ever think too highly of Him? Let us banish the unworthy thought from our minds forever. Let us learn to exalt Him more in our hearts, and to rest more confidingly the whole weight of our souls in His hands. Men may easily fall into error about the three Persons in the holy Trinity if they do not carefully adhere to the teaching of Scripture. But no man ever errs on the side of giving too much honor to God the Son. Christ is the meeting-point between the Trinity and the sinner's soul. "He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which sent Him." (John 5:23.) ================== Notes— v15.—[John bare witness....cried.] The time at which John the Baptist bore this testimony is not specified. We have not yet come to the historic part of John's Gospel, properly speaking. We are still in the introductory preface. It seems therefore probable, as Lightfoot says, that the sentence before us describes the habitual character of John's testimony to Christ. He was throughout his ministry, continually proclaiming Christ's greatness and superiority to himself, both in nature and dignity. [Cried.] The Greek word so rendered, implies a very loud cry, like that of one making a proclamation. Parkhurst defines it in this place as "speaking out very openly." [He that cometh after me....preferred before....was before me.] This sentence has caused much discussion and some difference of opinion. The Greek words literally translated would be, "He that cometh after me has become, or been made, in front of me,— for he was first of me." I feel no doubt that our English version gives the correct meaning of the sentence.— Hammond's note on the text is very good. The first "before," signifies before in place, position, or dignity. The Greek adverb so rendered, is used forty-nine times in the New Testament, but never once in the sense of "before in point of time or age." The second "before," signifies before in point of time or existence. "He was existing before me, at the time when I was not." The expression is certainly remarkable and uncommon, but there is another exactly like it in this Gospel, "It hated me before it hated you," where the literal rendering would be, "it hated me first of you." The sentence "he was before me," is a distinct statement of Christ's pre-existence. He was born at least six months after John the Baptist, and was therefore younger in age than John. Yet John says, "He was before me. He was existing when I was born." If he had meant only, that our Lord was a more honourable person than himself, he would surely have said, "He is before me." The greatness of John the Baptist's spiritual knowledge appears in this expression. He understood the doctrine of Christ's pre-existence. Christians are apt to think far too slightingly of John the Baptist's attainments, and the depths of his teaching. v16.—[Of His fulness have all we received.] This sentence means, "all we who believe on Jesus, have received an abundant supply of all that our souls need out of the full store that resides in Him for His people. It is from Christ and Christ alone, that all our spiritual wants have been supplied." Waterland, in his book on the Trinity, calls particular attention to this expression. He thinks that it was specially used with a view to the strange doctrines of the Gnostics in general, and the Cerinthians in particular, whose heresies arose before John's Gospel was written. They seem to have held that there was a certain fulness or plenitude of the Deity, into which only certain spiritual men, including themselves, were to be received, and from which others who were less spiritual, though they had grace, were to be excluded. "John," says Waterland, "here asserts, that all Christians, equally and indifferently, all believers at large, have received of the plenitude or fulness of the divine Word, and that not sparingly, but in the largest measure, even grace upon grace." Melancthon on this verse, calls particular attention to the word "all." He observes that it embraces the whole Church of God, from Adam downwards. All who have been saved have received out of Christ's fulness, and all other sources of fulness are distinctly excluded. [Grace for grace.] This expression is very peculiar, and has caused much difference of opinion among commentators. 1. Some think it means "the new grace of the Gospel in place of, or instead of, the old grace of the law." This is the view of Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Rupertus, Lyranus, Bucer, Beza, Scaliger, De Dieu, Calovius, Jansenius, Lampe, and Quesnel. 2. Some think that it means "grace, on account of God's grace or favour, and specially His favour towards His Son." This is the view of Zwingle, Melancthon, Chemnitius, Flacius, Rollock, Grotius, Camerarius, Tarnovius, Toletus, Barradius, Cartwright, and Cornelius à Lapide. 3. Some think that it means "grace on account of, or in return for, the grace of faith that is in us." This is the view of Augustine, Gomarus, and Beda. 4. Some think that it means "grace answering to, or proportioned to, the grace that is in Christ." This is the view of Calvin, Leigh, and Bridge. 5. Some think that it means "grace for the propagation of grace." This is the view of Lightfoot. 6. Some think that it means "accumulated grace, abundant grace, grace upon grace." This is the view of Schleusner, Winer, Bucer, Pellican, Musculus, Gualter, Poole, Nifanius, Pearce, Burkitt, Doddridge, Bengel, A. Clarke, Tittman, Olshausen, Barnes, and Alford. Brentius, Bullinger, Aretius, Jansenius, Hutcheson, Gill, Scott, and Henry, give several views, but signify their adhesion to no one in particular. On the whole, I am inclined to think that the sixth and last is the correct view. I admit fully that the Greek preposition, here rendered ''for," is only found in three senses in the Greek Testament,— viz.: "In the room or place of," (Matthew 2:22,) "In return for," (Romans 12:17,) and "On account of," (Acts 12:23; Ephesians 5:31.) In composition it also signifies "opposition," but with that we have nothing to do here. In the present case I think the meaning is "grace in the place of grace, constant, fresh, abundant supplies of new grace, to take the place of old grace, and therefore unfailing, abundant grace, continually filling up and supplying all our need." v17.—[For the law was given, &c.] This verse seems intended to show the inferiority of the law to the Gospel. It does so by putting in strong contrast the leading characteristics of the Old and New dispensations,— the religion which began with Moses, and the religion which began with Christ. By Moses was given the law,— the moral law, full of high and holy demands, and of stern threatenings against disobedience;— the ceremonial law, full of burdensome sacrifices, ordinances, and ceremonies, which never healed the worshipper's conscience, and at best were only shadows of good things to come. By Christ, on the other hand, came grace and truth,— grace by the full manifestation of God's plan of salvation, and the offer of complete pardon to every soul that believes on Jesus,— and truth, by the unveiled exhibition of Christ Himself, as the true sacrifice, the true Priest, and the true atonement for sin. Augustine, on this verse, says, "The law threatened, not helped; commanded, not healed; showed, not took away, our feebleness. But it made ready for the Physician, who was to come with grace and truth." v18.—[No man hath seen God, &c.] This verse seems intended to show the infinite personal superiority of Christ to Moses, or to any other saint that ever lived. No man hath ever seen God the Father; neither Abraham nor Moses, nor Joshua, nor David, nor Isaiah, nor Daniel. All these, however holy and good men, were still only men, and quite incapable of beholding God face to face, from very weakness. What they knew of God the Father, they knew only by report, or by special revelation, vouchsafed to them from time to time. They were but servants, and "The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth." (John 15:15.) Christ on the other hand, is the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father. He is one who is most intimately united from all eternity to God the Father, and is equal to Him in all things. He, during the time of His earthly ministry here, fully showed to man all that man can bear to know concerning His Father. He has revealed His Father's wisdom, and holiness, and compassion, and power, and hatred of sin, and love of sinners, in the fullest possible way. He has brought into clear light the great mystery how God the Father can be just, and yet justify the ungodly. The knowledge of the Father which a man derived from the teaching of Moses, is as different from that derived from the teaching of Christ, as twilight is different from noon-day. We must carefully remember that none of the appearances of God to man, described in the Old Testament, were the appearances of God the Father. He whom Abraham, and Jacob, and Moses, and Joshua, and Isaiah, and Daniel saw, was not the First Person in the Trinity, but the Second. The speculations of some commentators on the sentence now before us, as to whether any created being, angel or spirit, has ever seen God the Father, are, to say the least, unprofitable. The sentence before us speaks of man, being written for man's use. The expression, "Which is in the bosom of the Father," is doubtless a figurative one, mercifully accommodated to man's capacity. As one who lies in the bosom of another is fairly supposed to be most intimate with him, to know all his secrets, and possess all his affections, so is it, we are to understand, in the union of the Father and the Son. It is more close than man's mind can conceive. The Greek word rendered "declared," means literally, "hath expounded." It is the root of the words, which are well known among literary students of the Bible, "exegesis and exegetical." The idea is that of giving a full and particular explanation. (Acts 15:14.) Whether the "Declaring of God the Father," here described, is to be confined to Christ's oral teaching about the Father, or whether it means also that Christ has in His Person given a visible representation of many of the Father's attributes, is a doubtful point. Perhaps both ideas are included in the expression. In leaving this passage, I must say something about the disputed question, To whom do the three verses beginning, "And of his fulness," belong? Are they the words of John the Baptist, and a part of his testimony? Or are they the words of John the Gospel-writer, and an explanatory comment of his, such as we occasionally find in his Gospel?— There is something to be said on both sides. (a.) Some think that these three verses were spoken by John the Baptist, because of the awkwardness and abruptness with which his testimony ends upon the other theory,— because they run on harmoniously with the fifteenth verse,— and because there is nothing in them which we might not reasonably expect John the Baptist to say. This is the opinion of Origen, Athanasius, Basil, Cyprian, Augustine, Theophylact, Rupertus, Melancthon, Calvin, Zwingle, Erasmus, Chemnitius, Gualter, Musculus, Bucer, Flacius, Buillinger, Pellican, Toletus, Gomarus, Nifanius, Rollock, Poole, Burkitt, Hutcheson, Bengel, and Cartwright. (b.) Others think, that the three verses are the comment of John the Gospel-writer, arising out of John's testimony about Christ's pre-existence, and out of the expression, Grace and truth, in the fourteenth verse.— They regard the verses as an exposition of the expression, "Full of grace and truth."— They question whether the language is such as would have been used by John the Baptist,— whether he would have said "all we," after just saying "me,"— whether he would have used the word "fulness,"— whether he would, at so early a period, have contrasted the religion of Moses and of Christ,— and whether he would have so openly declared Christ to be the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.— Finally, they think that if these were John the Baptist's words, the Gospel would not have begun again in the nineteenth verse, "This is the record of John." This is the opinion of Cyril, Chrysostom, Euthymius, Beda, Lyranus, Brentius, Beza, Ferus, Grotius, Aretius, Barradius, Maldonatus, Cornelius à Lapide, Jansenius, Lightfoot, Arrowsmith, Gill, Doddridge, Lampe, Pearce, Henry, Tittman, A. Clarke, Barnes, Olshausen, Alford, and Wordsworth,— Baxter and Scott decline any decided opinion on the point, and Whitby says nothing about it. The arguments on either side are so nicely balanced, and the names on either side are so weighty, that I venture an opinion with much diffidence. But on the whole, I am inclined to think that the three verses are not the words of John the Baptist, but of John the Evangelist.— The remarkable style of the first eighteen verses of this chapter makes the abruptness and brevity of the testimony which John the Baptist bears, upon this theory, appear to me not strange.— And the connection between the three verses, and the words "full of grace and truth" in the fourteenth verse, appears to me much more marked and distinct, than the connection between John's testimony, and the words "of his fulness all we have received." Happily the point is one which involves no serious question, and is therefore one on which Christians may be content to differ, if they cannot convince one another. THE verses we have now read begin the properly historical part of John's Gospel. Hitherto we have been reading deep and weighty statements about Christ's divine nature, incarnation, and dignity. Now we come to the plain narrative of the days of Christ's earthly ministry, and the plain story of Christ's doings and sayings among men. And here, like the other Gospel-writers, John begins at once with "the record" or testimony of John the Baptist. (Matthew 3:1; Mark 1:2; Luke 3:2.) We have, for one thing, in these verses, an instructive example of true humility. That example is supplied by John the Baptist himself. John the Baptist was an eminent saint of God. There are few names which stand higher than his in the Bible calendar of great and good men. The Lord Jesus Himself declared that "Among them that are born of woman there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist." (Matthew 11:11.) The Lord Jesus Himself declared that he was "a burning and a shining light." (John 5:35.) Yet here in this passage we see this eminent saint lowly, self-abased, and full of humility. He puts away from himself the honor which the Jews from Jerusalem were ready to pay him. He declines all flattering titles. He speaks of himself as nothing more than the "voice of one crying in the wilderness," and as one who "baptized with water." He proclaims loudly that there is One standing among the Jews far greater than himself, One whose shoe-latchet he is not worthy to unloose. He claims honor not for himself but for Christ. To exalt Christ was his mission, and to that mission he steadfastly adheres. The greatest saints of God in every age of the Church have always been men of John the Baptist's spirit. In gifts, and knowledge, and general character they have often differed widely. But in one respect they have always been alike;— they have been "clothed with humility." (1 Peter 5:5.) They have not sought their own honor. They have thought little of themselves. They have been ever willing to decrease if Christ might only increase, to be nothing if Christ might be all. And here has been the secret of the honor God has put upon them. "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 14:11.) If we profess to have any real Christianity, let us strive to be of John the Baptist's spirit. Let us study humility. This is the grace with which all must begin, who would be saved. We have no true religion about us, until we cast away our high thoughts, and feel ourselves sinners.— This is the grace which all saints may follow after, and which none have any excuse for neglecting. All God's children have not gifts, or money, or time to work, or a wide sphere of usefulness; but all may be humble.— This is the grace, above all, which will appear most beautiful in our latter end. Never shall we feel the need of humility so deeply, as when we lie on our deathbeds, and stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. Our whole lives will then appear a long catalogue of imperfections, ourselves nothing, and Christ all. We have, for another thing, in these verses, a mournful example of the blindness of unconverted men. That example is supplied by the state of the Jews who came to question John the Baptist. These Jews professed to be waiting for the appearance of Messiah. Like all the Pharisees they prided themselves on being children of Abraham, and possessors of the covenants. They rested in the law, and made their boast of God. They professed to know God's will, and to believe God's promises. They were confident that they themselves were guides of the blind, and lights of them that sat in darkness. (Romans 2:17-19.) And yet at this very moment their souls were utterly in the dark. "There was standing among them," as John the Baptist told them, "One whom they knew not." Christ Himself, the promised Messiah, was in the midst of them, and yet they neither knew Him, nor saw Him, nor received Him, nor acknowledged Him, nor believed Him. And worse than this, the vast majority of them never would know Him! The words of John the Baptist are a prophetic description of a state of things which lasted during the whole of our Lord's earthly ministry. Christ "stood among the Jews," and yet the Jews knew Him not, and the greater part of them died in their sins. It is a solemn thought that John the Baptist's words in this place apply strictly to thousands in the present day. Christ is still standing among many who neither see, nor know, nor believe. Christ is passing by in many a parish and many a congregation, and the vast majority have neither an eye to see Him, nor an ear to hear Him. The spirit of slumber seems poured out upon them. Money, and pleasure, and the world they know; but they know not Christ. The kingdom of God is close to them; but they sleep. Salvation is within their reach; but they sleep. Mercy, grace, peace, heaven, eternal life, are so nigh that they might touch them; and yet they sleep. "Christ standeth among them and they know him not." These are sorrowful things to write down. But every faithful minister of Christ can testify, like John the Baptist, that they are true. What are we doing ourselves? This, after all, is the great question that concerns us. Do we know the extent of our religious privileges in this country, and in these times? Are we aware that Christ is going to and fro in our land, inviting souls to join Him and to be His disciples? Do we know that the time is short and that the door of mercy will soon be closed for evermore? Do we know that Christ rejected will soon be Christ withdrawn?— Happy are they who can give a good account of these inquiries and who "know the day of their visitation"! (Luke 19:44.) It will be better at the last day never to have been born, than to have had Christ "standing among us" and not to have known Him. ================== Notes— v19.—[This is the record.] The Greek word translated "record," is the same that is rendered "witness" in John 1:7. The sentence means, "this is the testimony that John bore." [When.] This word raises the question, "At what time was this testimony of John borne?" It appears to have been after our Lord Jesus Christ's baptism, and at the end of His forty days' temptation in the wilderness. John 1:29 tells us, that "the next day John seeth Jesus coming to him." It is worthy of notice that nowhere in the Gospels do we find "days" so carefully marked, as in that portion of the first chapter of John, which we have now begun. [The Jews.] This expression is remarkable, as peculiar to John's Gospel. He generally speaks of our Lord's enemies and questioners, as "the Jews." It seems to indicate that John did not write his Gospel in Palestine or at Jerusalem, and that it was written especially for the Gentile Christians scattered over the world, and much later than the other three Gospels. [Sent Priests and Levites....Jerusalem.] These words show that those who questioned John the Baptist on this occasion, were a formal deputation, sent with authority from the Sanhedrim, or ecclesiastical council of the Jews, to inquire about John's proceedings, and to report what he taught, and whom he gave himself out to be. Wordsworth remarks, that "More honour was paid by the Jews to John than to Christ, both in the persons sent, and in the place from which they were sent. They esteemed John for his sacredotal lineage." When Christ appeared, they called Him the Carpenter's Son. Our Lord refers to this great respect at first shown to John, when He says, "ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light." (John 5:35.) [To ask him, Who art thou?] We can hardly suppose that these Priests and Levites were ignorant that John was the son of a priest, Zacharias, and therefore a Levite himself. Their inquiry seems to refer to John's office. "What did he profess to be? Did he assume to be the Messiah? Did he claim to be a prophet? What reason could he assign for his having taken up his remarkable position as a preacher and a baptizer at a distance from Jerusalem? What account could he give of himself and his ministry?" Two things are plainly taught in this verse. One is, the great sensation which John the Baptist's ministry caused throughout Palestine. He attracted so much notice, and such crowds followed him, that the Sanhedrim felt it necessary to inquire about him.— The other is, the state of expectation in which the minds of the Jews were at this particular season. Partly from the seventy weeks of Daniel having expired, partly from the sceptre having practically departed from Judah, there was evidently an expectation that some remarkable person was about to appear.— As to the sort of person the Jews expected, it is plain that they only looked for a temporal King, who would make them once more an independent nation. They had no idea of a spiritual Saviour from sin. But as to the fact that this vague expectation existed throughout the East at this particular time, we have the direct testimony of Latin historians. The extraordinary ministry of John the Baptist, at once suggested the idea to the Jews at Jerusalem, that he might possibly be the expected Redeemer. Therefore they sent to ask, "Who art thou? Art thou the long expected King?" v20.—[He confessed....denied not....confessed, &c.] This is a peculiar form of speech, implying a very positive, unmistakable, emphatic asseveration. It gives the idea of a man shrinking with holy indignation from the very thought of being regarded as the Christ;— "Pain me not by suggesting that such an one as I can be the Christ of God. I am one far inferior to Him." Bengel says on this verse, "Whilst John denied himself, he did not deny Christ."— Luther makes some excellent remarks on the strong temptation which was here put in John's way, to take honour to himself, and the humility and faith which he showed in overcoming it. v21.—[Art thou Elias?] This question was not an absurd and unnatural one, as some commentators have thought fit to say. It was based upon that prophecy of Malachi, which speaks of God "sending Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the LORD." (Malachi 4:5.) The manner, dress, and ministry of John the Baptist, as well as his appearing in the wilderness, constituted a great similarity between him and Elijah, and suggested the idea that John might possibly be Elijah. "If this man," thought the Priests and Levites, "is not the Christ, perhaps he is his forerunner, the prophet Elijah." [And he saith, I am not.] This answer of John's deserves particular notice, and involves a grave difficulty. How could John say, "I am not Elias," when Christ says distinctly in another place, "This is Elias." How shall we reconcile these two statements?— To me it seems impossible to explain John's words, except on the simple theory, that there are two comings of Elijah the prophet. The first was only a coming in spirit and in power, but not a literal coming. The second will be a literal and real appearance on earth of him whom Elisha saw taken up into heaven. The first coming took place at Christ's first advent, and was fulfilled by John the Baptist going before Messiah's face in the spirit and power of Elijah. The second coming of Elijah will take place at the second advent of Jesus Christ, and will he fulfilled by Elijah himself once more coming as a prophet to the tribes of Israel. It is of this second, future, literal coming of Elias that John speaks in this place. When he says, "I am not Elias," he means, "I am not that Elijah you mean, who was taken up to heaven 900 years ago. The coming of that Elijah is yet a future thing. I am the forerunner of the first advent in humiliation, not of the second advent in glory. I am not the herald of Christ coming to reign, as Elijah will be one day, but the herald of Christ coming to suffer on the cross. I am not come to prepare the way for a conquering King, such as you fondly expect, but for a meek and lowly Saviour, whose great work is to bear our sins and to die. I am not the Elias you expect." In confirmation of this view, our Lord's remarkable words in another Gospel, ought to be carefully studied. He says distinctly "Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things," (Matthew 17:11.) And yet He adds in the same breath, "I say unto you that Elias is come already," that is, "He is come, in a certain sense, by John the Baptist going before my face in the spirit and power of Elias." In short, our Lord says at the same time, "Elias shall come," and "Elias is come"!— To me His words seem a plain proof of the theory I am here maintaining, that there are two comings of Elias. In spirit Elias came, when John the Baptist came, a man like to Elias in mind and habits. But in the flesh Elias has not yet come, and is yet to appear. And it was in the view of this future, literal coming, that John the Baptist said, "I am not Elias."— He knew that the Jews were thinking of the times of Messiah's glory, and of the literal coming of Elijah, which would usher in those times. Therefore he says, "I am not the Elias you mean. I belong to a different dispensation." The other view, which is undoubtedly maintained by the vast majority of commentators, appears to me surrounded with insuperable difficulties. According to them, there never was to be more than one fulfilment of Malachi's prophecy about Elias. It was to be fulfilled by John the Baptist; and when he appeared, it had received its full accomplishment. How John the Baptist's answer in this place can be satisfactorily explained, according to this theory, I am quite unable to see. The Jews ask him plainly, whether he is Elias, that is, whether he is the person who is to fulfil Malachi's prophecy. This, at any rate, was evidently the idea in their minds. He answers distinctly that he is not. And yet according to the theory against which I contend, he was Elias, and he ought to have replied, "I am." In short, he appears to say that which is not true!— There never was to be any one after him, who was to fulfil Malachi's prophecy, and yet he declares in effect that he does not fulfil it, by saying that he is not Elias! About the future literal coming of Elijah the prophet, when the Jews will at last see a living person, who will say, "I am Elias," this is not the place to speak. Whether or not he will minister to any but the Jews,— whether or not he will prove one of the two witnesses spoken of in Revelation, (Revelation 11:3,) are interesting and disputed questions. I will only remark, that the subject deserves far more attention than it ordinarily receives. The following quotations from the Fathers will show that the opinion I have expressed is not a modern one: Chrysostom, on Matthew 17:10, says, "As there are two comings of Christ,— first, to suffer,— secondly, to judge, so there are two comings of Elias; first of John before Christ's first coming, who is called Elias, because he came in the manner and spirit of Elias; secondly, of the person of Elijah, the Tishbite, before Christ's second coming."— Jerome and Theophylact say just the same. Gregory, quoted by Mayer, says, "Whereas John denieth himself to be Elias, and Christ after affirmeth it, there is no contradiction. There is a double coming of Elias. The one is in spirit, before Christ's coming to redeem; the other in person, before Christ's coming to judgment. According to the first, Christ's saying is true, 'This is Elias.' According to the second, John's speech is true, 'I am not.' This was the fittest answer to men asking in a carnal sense." Augustine says, "What John was to the first advent, Elias will be to the second advent. As there are two advents, so there are two heralds." [Art thou that prophet?] There are two views of this question. Some think, as Augustine and Gregory, that the words should be as our marginal reading has them, "Art thou a prophet?" Others think, as Cyril and Chrysostom, that the question referred to "the prophet," of whom Moses foretold that he would come. (Deuteronomy 18:15.) I decidedly prefer the latter view. It seems very improbable that John the Baptist would entirely deny that he was a prophet.— Besides this, it seems not unreasonable that the Jews would ask whether he was "the great prophet foretold by Moses." And to this question, John answers most truly, that he was not.— It admits of doubt, whether the Jews who questioned him, clearly saw that the "prophet like unto Moses," and the "Messiah," were to be one and the same. It rather looks as if they thought "Christ" and "the prophet" were two different persons. Lightfoot thinks that the question refers to a common expectation among the Jews, that the prophets were to rise again at the coming of Messiah, and that John's questioners meant, "Art thou one of the prophets raised from the dead?" This superstitious notion explains the words of the disciples in Luke, "Others say that one of the old prophets is risen again." (Luke 9:19.) But the Greek article in the words before us, seems to me too strong to be rendered "a prophet." v22.—[An answer to them that sent us.] This expression confirms the opinion already given, about the character of those who questioned John. They were not idle inquirers, but a formal deputation sent down from the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, with a commission to find out who John was, and to make a report of what they discovered. v23.—[He said, I am the voice, &c.] John the Baptist's account of himself in this verse, consists of a reference to Scripture. He reminds the Priests and Levites who wanted to know who he was, of Isaiah's prophecy concerning the times of the Messiah. (Isaiah 40:3.) They would there find Isaiah saying, with the abruptness of an inspired prophet, and speaking as if he saw what he was describing, "The voice of Him that crieth in the wilderness." That means, "I hear in spirit, as I look forward to Messiah's time, a man crying in a wilderness, prepare ye the way of the LORD."— "That prophecy," says John the Baptist, "is this day fulfilled in me. I am the person whom Isaiah saw and heard in vision. I am come to prepare the way for Messiah, like a man going before a King in a desert country, to prepare a road for his master. I am come to make ready the barren hearts of the Jewish nation for Christ's first advent, and the kingdom of God. I am only a voice. I do not come to work miracles. I do not want disciples to follow me, but my master. The object of my mission is to be a herald, a crier, a warning voice to my fellow-countrymen, so that when my master begins His ministry they may not be found unprepared. [The wilderness.] The common view of this expression is, that it refers to John the Baptist's ministry having begun in the wilderness of Judæa. I rather doubt the correctness of this idea. The whole quotation is undeniably figurative. The prophet compares Messiah's forerunner to one preparing a road for a King through a desert or uninhabited country. The "way" or road, is unquestionably figurative, and the straightness of the way too. No one supposes that Isaiah meant that John the Baptist was literally to make a road. But if the "way" is figurative, the country through which it is made must surely be figurative too. I therefore think that the wilderness is a prophetical and figurative description of the spiritual barrenness of Israel, when the Messiah's forerunner began his ministry. At the same time, I fully admit that John's retired and ascetic habits and his residence in the wilderness, form a remarkable coincidence with the text. The expression "voice," has often been remarked as a beautiful illustration of the general character of John's ministry. He was eminently a humble man. He was one who desired to be heard, and to awaken attention by the sound of his testimony, but not to be seen or visibly honoured. v24.—[And they....sent....Pharisees.] The object of this verse is somewhat doubtful. Some think that it refers to the verse preceding, which contains a quotation from Isaiah. They which were sent, being Pharisees, and not Sadducees or Herodians, should have seen and admitted the Scriptural character of John's mission.— Some think, as Bengel, that it refers to the following verse, in which a question was raised about baptism. They which were sent, being Pharisees, were specially strict about ceremonies, ordinances, and forms. Therefore they were not satisfied with a reference to Scripture. They asked John's authority for baptizing. Some think that it refers generally to the notorious' enmity and dislike with which the Pharisees regarded John the Baptist all through his ministry. Our Lord says in another place, "They rejected the counsel of God, not being baptized by him." (Luke 7:30.) The text before us would then mean, that they which asked all these questions, asked them with a thoroughly unfriendly spirit, and with no real desire to learn God's truth, because they were Pharisees. v25.—[Why baptizest thou....if thou be not, &c.] This verse evidently implies that John's questioners expected the Messiah, or his forerunner, to baptize whenever he appeared. It is not unlikely, as Lightfoot says, that the idea arose from the text in Ezekiel, describing Messiah's time, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean," &c. (Ezekiel 36:25.) Luther thinks, that this verse shows that the questioners who came to John, now changed their tone. Hitherto they had flattered. Now they began to threaten. One thing is very clear from this verse. The Jews were not unacquainted with baptism as a religious ordinance. It was one of the ceremonies, according to Lightfoot, by which proselytes were admitted into the Jewish Church. Moreover it is worthy of notice, that when proselytes were so admitted, their children were baptized together with them. It was not therefore the fact of John baptizing, which the Pharisees here called in question, but his authority for administering baptism. v26.—[I baptize with water; but &c.] The answer of John the Baptist here reported is very elliptical, and the full meaning of what he said must be supplied from other places. He seems to say, "I do not baptize by my own authority, but by a commission from One far higher than either you or I. I only baptize with water; and I do not do it to make disciples for myself, but for my master. I form no party. I ask no man to follow me. I tell all whom I baptize to believe on that Mighty One who is coming after me. I am only the servant of One far greater than myself, who is even now standing among you, if you had eyes to see him. He is one so much above me in nature and dignity, that I am not worthy to be his humblest servant. He can baptize hearts, and will fulfil the promises about Messiah, to which you are vaguely referring. In the mean time I only baptize with water all those who profess repentance and willingness to receive my master.— I baptize for another and not for myself." [There standeth one among you.] I doubt whether these words literally mean, "There is standing in the crowd of you my hearers." I prefer the sense, "there is already living and abiding among you in this land of Judæa one greater than I." I think this the sense because of the words in the 29th verse, "John seeth Jesus coming to him," which seem to imply that he was not with him the previous day.— The thought seems parallel to that contained in the words, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation."— "The messenger of God cometh suddenly to his temple." (Malachi 3:1; Luke 17:20.) All serve to point to the same truth, viz.— that when Messiah came the first time, He came quietly, without noise, without display, without the nation of the Jews knowing it, so that he "stood among them," and yet they were not aware of His presence. The Greek word rendered "standeth," is in the perfect tense, and would be literally rendered, "there hath stood," that is, ''hath stood for some little time, and is still standing." The Messiah has come and is present. Bengel renders it, "hath taken his stand." The view I have maintained of the meaning of the word "standeth," is held by Parkhurst, who defines it as "being or living," and quotes John 6:22, as a parallel instance. Pearce takes the same view, and quotes Acts 26:22. Jansenius renders it, "has conversed among you, as when he sat among the doctors" in the temple. Aretius renders it, "He is present in the flesh, and walking in Judæa." [Ye know not.] This seems to mean, not only that the Jews knew not Jesus the Messiah by sight, but that they had no spiritual knowledge of him, and of the true nature of his office, as the Saviour of sinners.— "Ye look for a conquering, reigning Messiah. Ye know not the suffering Messiah, who came to be cut off, and to be crucified for sinners." Bengel remarks, that John is here specially "addressing inhabitants of Jerusalem, who had not been present at the baptism of Jesus. And he whets their desires, that they may be anxious to become acquainted with him." v27.—[Coming after....preferred before.] The remarks made on John 1:15 apply fully to this expression. John declares, that though his master, in point of time, began his ministry after him, in point of dignity he was far above him. To exalt Christ, and abase himself, seem ideas never long out of John's mind. [Shoe's latchet....worthy to unloose.] This is evidently a proverbial expression. "I am so inferior to Him that came after me, that in comparison with him, I am like the humblest servant compared to his master." To be not fit to carry a person's shoes, in our times, is a well-known proverb, describing inferiority. v28.—[These things....done in Bethabara.] In hot countries like Palestine, it was evidently important for John the Baptist to be near a supply of water, suited to the baptism of the multitudes who came to him. If Beth-barah, spoken of in Gideon's history is the same place, it is worthy of notice that it is specially mentioned as near "waters." (Judges 7:24.) The name of the place ought always to be dear to the hearts of Christians. It is the place where the first disciples of Jesus were made, and the foundation of the Christian church was laid. It was here, "the next day," that Jesus was publicly proclaimed as the "Lamb of God." It was here, "the day after," that Andrew and another disciple followed Jesus. Here then the Church of Christ, properly so called, began. In leaving this passage, let us remember that John the Baptist's ministry left the Jews entirely without excuse, when afterwards they refused to believe on Christ. They could never plead that our Lord's ministry came on them unawares and took them by surprise. The whole nation dwelling in Palestine, from the great ecclesiastical council down to the humblest classes, were evidently aroused to a state of attention by John's doings. THIS passage contains a verse which ought to be printed in great letters in the memory of every reader of the Bible. All the stars in heaven are bright and beautiful, and yet one star exceedeth another star in glory. So also all texts of Scripture are inspired and profitable, and yet some texts are richer than others. Of such texts the first verse before us is preeminently one. Never was there a fuller testimony borne to Christ upon earth, than that which is here borne by John the Baptist. Let us notice, firstly, in this passage, the peculiar name which John the Baptist gives to Christ. He calls Him "The Lamb of God." This name did not merely mean, as some have supposed, that Christ was meek and gentle as a lamb. This would be truth no doubt, but only a very small portion of the truth. There are greater things here than this! It meant that Christ was the great sacrifice for sin, who was come to make atonement for transgression by His own death upon the cross. He was the true Lamb which Abraham told Isaac at Moriah God would provide. (Genesis 22:8.) He was the true Lamb to which every morning and evening sacrifice in the temple had daily pointed. He was the Lamb of which Isaiah had prophesied, that He would be "brought to the slaughter." (Isaiah 53:7.) He was the true Lamb of which the passover lamb in Egypt had been a vivid type. In short, He was the great propitiation for sin which God had covenanted from all eternity to send into the world. He was God's Lamb. Let us take heed that in all our thoughts of Christ, we first think of Him as John the Baptist here represents Him. Let us serve him faithfully as our Master. Let us obey Him loyally as our King. Let us study His teaching as our Prophet. Let us walk diligently after Him as our Example. Let us look anxiously for Him as our coming Redeemer of body as well as soul. But above all, let us prize Him as our Sacrifice, and rest our whole weight on His death as an atonement for sin. Let His blood be more precious in our eyes every year we live. Whatever else we glory in about Christ, let us glory above all things in His cross. This is the corner-stone, this is the citadel, this is the rule of true Christian theology. We know nothing rightly about Christ, until we see him with John the Baptist's eyes, and can rejoice in Him as "the Lamb that was slain." Let us notice, secondly, in this passage, the peculiar work which John the Baptist describes Christ as doing. He says that "he taketh away the sin of the world." Christ is a Saviour. He did not come on earth to be a conqueror, or a philosopher, or a mere teacher of morality. He came to save sinners. He came to do that which man could never do for himself,— to do that which money and learning can never obtain,— to do that which is essential to man's real happiness,— He came to "take away sin." Christ is a complete Savior. He "taketh away sin." He did not merely make vague proclamations of pardon, mercy, and forgiveness. He "took" our sins upon Himself, and carried them away. He allowed them to be laid upon Himself, and "bore them in His own body on the tree." (1 Peter 2:24.) The sins of every one that believes on Jesus are made as though they had never been sinned at all. The Lamb of God has taken them clean away. Christ is an almighty Savior, and a Savior for all mankind. He "taketh away the sin of the world." He did not die for the Jews only, but for the Gentile as well as the Jew. He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all mankind. The payment that He made on the cross was more than enough to make satisfaction for the debts of all. The blood that He shed was precious enough to wash away the sins of all. His atonement on the cross was sufficient for all mankind, though efficient only to them that believe. The sin that He took up and bore on the cross was the sin of the whole world. Last, but not least, Christ is a perpetual and unwearied Savior. He "taketh away" sin. He is daily taking it away from every one that believes on Him,— daily purging, daily cleansing, daily washing the souls of His people, daily granting and applying fresh supplies of mercy. He did not cease to work for His saints, when He died for them on the cross. He lives in heaven as a Priest, to present His sacrifice continually before God. In grace as well as in providence, Christ worketh still. He is ever taking away sin. These are golden truths indeed. Well would it be for the Church of Christ, if they were used by all who know them! Our very familiarity with texts like these is one of our greatest dangers. Blessed are they who not only keep this text in their memories, but feed upon it in their hearts! Let us notice, lastly, in this passage, the peculiar office which John the Baptist attributes to Christ. He speaks of Him as Him "which baptizeeth with the Holy Ghost." The baptism here spoken of is not the baptism of water. It does not consist either of dipping or sprinkling. It does not belong exclusively either to infants or to grown up people. It is not a baptism which any man can give, Episcopalian or Presbyterian, Independent or Methodist, layman or minister. It is a baptism which the great Head of the Church keeps exclusively in His own hands. It consists of the implanting of grace into the inward man. It is the same thing with the new birth. It is a baptism, not of the body, but of the heart. It is a baptism which the penitent thief received, though neither dipped nor sprinkled by the hand of man. It is a baptism which Ananias and Sapphira did not receive, though admitted into church-communion by apostolic men. Let it be a settled principle in our religion that the baptism of which John the Baptist speaks here, is the baptism which is absolutely necessary to salvation. It is well to be baptized into the visible Church; but it is far better to be baptized into that Church which is made up of true believers. The baptism of water is a most blessed and profitable ordinance, and cannot be neglected without great sin. But the baptism of the Holy Ghost is of far greater importance. The man who dies with his heart not baptized by Christ can never be saved. Let us ask ourselves, as we leave this passage, Whether we are baptized with the Holy Ghost, and whether we have any real interest in the Lamb of God? Thousands, unhappily, are wasting their time in controversy about water baptism, and neglecting the baptism of the heart. Thousands more are content with a head-knowledge of the Lamb of God, or have never sought Him by faith, that their own sins may be actually taken away. Let us take heed that we ourselves have new hearts, and believe to the saving of our souls. ================== Notes— v29.—[The next day.] This means the day after the conversation between John the Baptist and the deputation of priests and Levites. The careful marking of days by John at this stage of his gospel deserves particular notice. [Seeth Jesus coming unto him.] These words seem to prove that Jesus was not present on the preceding day, during the conversation with the priests and Levites, and that John's words, "standeth among you," cannot be literally taken. It seems probable, as before observed, that our Lord came back to John after His temptation in the wilderness. The Spirit took Him into the wilderness "immediately" after His baptism, (Mark 1:12,) and it was upon His return, at the end of forty days, that John the Baptist saw him again. [And saith, behold.] This appears to have been a public, open proclamation made by John to his disciples and the multitude who surrounded him. "Behold that person who is coming towards us. He is the Lamb of God, the Messiah of whom I have been preaching to you, and on whom I have told you to believe." [The Lamb of God.] There can be no reasonable doubt that John gave this name to our Lord because He was the true sacrifice for sin, the true antitype of the passover lamb, and the lamb prophesied of by Isaiah. (Isaiah 53:7.) The idea that he only refers to the quietness and meekness of our Lord's personal character is utterly unsatisfactory. He is describing our Lord's official character as the great propitiation for sin. The expression, "Lamb of God," according to some, signifies "that eminent, great, divine, and most excellent Lamb." It is a well-known Hebraism to describe anything very great as a thing "of God." Thus we read of "thunderings of God," and "trembling of God," (Exodus 9:28; 1 Samuel 14:15.)— According to others it signifies the Lamb which God has provided from all eternity, and which God has long covenanted and promised to send into the world to be slain for sinners. Both views make good doctrine, but the second seems the preferable one. Bengel thinks that John called our Lord "the Lamb of God," with a special reference to the Passover, which was then near. (John 2:13.) He also sees a parallel between the expression "Lamb of God," and the phrase, "sacrifice of God," (Psalms 51:17,) which means "the sacrifice which God acknowledges as pleasing to Him." Chemnitius thinks, in addition to other reasons why John calls our Lord "the Lamb," that he desired to show that Christ's kingdom was not political. He was neither the ram nor the he-goat described in Daniel. (Daniel 8:20.) [Taketh away.] The Greek word so rendered, is given in the marginal reading, "beareth." Both ideas are included. It means "taketh away by his expiatory death." The Lamb of God "beareth" the sin of the world by taking it upon Himself. He allowed our guilt to be laid upon Him, and carried it away like the scapegoat, so that there was none left. It is one of the many expressions which describe the great Scripture truth, that Christ's death was a vicarious sacrifice for sin. He became our substitute. He took upon Him our sin. He Was made sin for us. Our sins were imputed to Him. He was made a curse for us. The word here rendered "taketh away" is found at least 100 times in the New Testament. In 82 places it is rendered, "take,"— "take up,"— or "take away." In 5 places it is, "bear." In 4 it is, "lift up." In 2 it is, "remove." In most of the other places it is the imperative expression, "away with!" All point to the same view of the text before us, viz., "a complete atonement for sin." The use of the present tense, "taketh away," is remarked by all the best commentators, ancient and modern. It is intended to show the completeness of Christ's satisfaction for sin, and the continual application of His once-made sacrifice. He is always taking sin away. Rollock observes, "The influence of Christ's sacrifice is perpetual, and His blood never dries up." The idea maintained by some, that "taking away sin," in this place, includes sanctification as well as justification, seems to me quite untenable. That Christ "takes away" the power of a believer's sins, when He applies His redemption to his soul, is no doubt true. But it is not the truth of this text. [The sin.] Let it be noted that the singular number is used here. It is "the sin," not "the sins." The expression seems to me purposely intended to show that what Christ took away, and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam. He bore the weight of all, and made an atonement sufficient to make satisfaction for all. The idea propounded by some, that "the sin" which Christ is said here to take away, is only man's original sin,— and that for man's actual sins each man must make satisfaction himself, is destitute of the slightest foundation in Scripture, contradicts scores of plain texts, and utterly overthrows the whole Gospel. [Of the world.] It is almost needless to say that there are two views of this expression. Some say, that it only means, that Christ takes away the sins of Gentiles as well as Jews, and that it does not mean the sin of any but the elect. Others say, that it really means that Christ "taketh away" the sin of all mankind, that is, that He made an atonement sufficient for all, and that all are salvable, though not all saved, in consequence of His death. I decidedly prefer the latter of these two views. I hold as strongly as any one. that Christ's death is profitable to none but to the elect who believe on His name. But I dare not limit and pare down such expressions as the one before us. I dare not say that no atonement has been made, in any sense, except for the elect. I believe it is possible to be more systematic than the Bible in our statements. When I read that the wicked who are lost, "deny the Lord that bought them." (2 Peter 2:1,) and that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself," (2 Corinthians 5:19,) I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man. I am aware the objection is often made, that "if Christ taketh away the sin of the world, and yet the vast majority of men die in their sins and are lost, Christ's work for many was wrought in vain." I see no force in this objection. I think we might as well argue, that because sin came into the world and marred creation, creation was in vain. We are not talking of the works of men, but of the eternal Word, and we must be content to see much in His works that we do not entirely understand. Though multitudes are lost, I have no doubt the last day will prove that nothing that Christ did for them was in vain. I rest in the view of the text, that in some ineffable and inscrutable way, the whole world's sin was borne and atoned for by Christ. "He taketh away, or makes atonement for, the sin of all the men and women in the world." I have no doubt, from Scripture, that the vast majority of "the world's" inhabitants will be found at last to have received no benefit from Christ, and to have died in their sins. I repudiate the idea of universal salvation, as a dangerous heresy, and utterly contrary to Scripture.— But the lost will not prove to be lost because Christ did nothing for them. He bore their sins. He carried their transgressions. He provided payment, but they would not put in their claim to any interest in it. He set the prison door open to all; but the majority would not come out and be free. In the work of the Father in election, and of the Spirit in conversion, I see limitation in the Bible most clearly. But in the work of Christ in atonement I see no limitation. The atonement was made for all the world, though it is applied to and enjoyed by none but believers.— Christ's intercession is the peculiar privilege of His people. But Christ's atonement is a benefit which is offered freely and honestly to all mankind. In saying all this I am fully aware that the word "world" is sometimes used in a qualified sense, and must be interpreted with some limitation. When it is said, "The world knew him not," (John 1:10,) it cannot mean that not a single person in the world knew Him. But in the text before us I see no necessity for limitation. I see the whole mass of mankind's guilt brought together in one singular word, "the sin of the world," and that sin, I am told, Christ "taketh away." And I believe the true meaning to be, that the Lamb of God has made atonement sufficient for all mankind, though efficient unquestionably to none but believers. Augustine remarks, "How weighty must be the blood of the Lamb, by whom the world was made, to turn the scale when weighed against the world!" Calvin, in his commentary on this verse, says, "John uses the word sin in the singular number for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says 'The sin of the world,' he extends this favour indiscriminately to the whole human race, that the Jews might not think that He had been sent to them alone. Hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men, without exception, are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to Him. John the Baptist, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to Him by the guidance of faith." Brentius says, "Although all the men in the world do not receive the benefit of Christ's passion, because all do not believe on Christ, yet that benefit is so offered to the whole world, that whosoever, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, king or peasant, high or low, rich or poor, sick or well, old or young, receives Christ by faith, is justified before God, and saved with an eternal salvation." Musculus says, "John places before us no one particular person whose sins the Lamb has come to take away; but under the expression 'the world,' he comprehends the whole race of mortals from the very beginning of the world to the end of it." Melancthon says, "He taketh away the sin, that is the universal condemnation, of the human race." Chemnitius says, "John affirms that the benefits of Christ belong not to the Jews only, but to the whole world, and that no one who is in the world is excluded from them, if he is only willing to receive them by faith." The deep spiritual knowledge exhibited by John the Baptist in this verse, ought not to be overlooked. Such a sentence as the one before us never fell from the lips of any other disciple of Christ before the day of Pentecost. Others could say that our Lord was the Christ, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Son of David, the King of Israel, the Son of the Blessed, who was to come into the world. But none seem to have seen so clearly as John that Christ was the sacrifice for sin, the Lamb that was to be slain. Well would it be for the Church of Christ in the nineteenth century, if all its ministers possessed as much knowledge of Christ's atonement as is here shown by John the Baptist! John saw the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, before He died on the cross. Many so-called Christians cannot see Christ's vicarious sacrifice even at this day! v30.—[This is he of whom I said.] These words appear to have been spoken in our Lord's presence, and to have been specially intended to point the multitude to Him. "This person before you is He of whom I have repeatedly spoken in my ministry, as the coming One who is far greater than myself. You see Him now before you." [A man...he was before me.] The human and divine natures of our Lord are here brought together by John in one sentence, "He of whom I spake to you is a man, and yet at the same time He is One who was before me, because He has existed from all eternity." v31.—[I knew him not.] This means "I was not acquainted with Him in time past. There has been no private collusion or arrangement between Him and me. I did not even know Him by sight until the day when He came to be baptized." The difficulty connected with these words of John will be considered fully at the 33rd verse. [That he should be made manifest to Israel, &c.] John here declares that the great end of his ministry was, that this wonderful Person, whom he had just pointed out, should be manifested and made known to the Jews. He did not come to form a party of his own, or to baptize in his own name. The whole object of his preaching and baptizing was now before his hearers. It was simply to make known to Israel the Mighty One, the Lamb of God, whom they now saw. v32.—[And John bare record.] These words seem to denote a public and solemn testimony borne by John to the fact, that our Lord had been visibly acknowledged by God the Father as the Messiah. If his hearers would have further proof that this Person, to whom he was pointing them, was really the Christ, he would tell them what he had seen with his own eyes. He would bear witness that he had seen visible proofs that this Person was really the Messiah. [I saw.] This means, "At the time when our Lord was baptized, I saw this heavenly vision." Whether any beside John saw this vision, and heard the voice of the Father, which accompanied it, may well be doubted. At any rate, if they did, they did not understand either what they saw or heard. [The Spirit descending, &c.] This means that John saw something coming down from heaven after the manner of a dove flying downwards, and that what he saw was the Holy Spirit, graciously revealing Himself in a visible manner. [It abode upon him.] This means that the heavenly vision of the Holy Spirit rested upon Christ at the time of His baptism. It lighted down upon Him as a dove would settle down, and did not leave Him. I cannot satisfy myself that the expression "like a dove" in this verse, means that any dove was really seen by John, when our Lord was baptized. All the four Gospel-writers describe an appearance "like a dove." Luke distinctly speaks of "a bodily shape." That something visible was seen by John is plain, and that its appearance descending on our Lord, resembled the downward flight of a dove, is also plain. But I am unable to see that the Holy Ghost took upon Him the actual form of a dove. Some think, as Augustine, that the likeness to a dove was especially employed at this time, to answer the figure of Noah's flood. He says, "As a dove did at that time bring tidings of the abating of the water, so doth it now of the abating of the wrath of God, upon the preaching of the Gospel." We must beware of supposing for a moment, that this vision of the Spirit descending was meant to imply, that our Lord first received the grace of the Holy Ghost at that particular time, or that He had not received it before in the same degree. We must not doubt that the Holy Ghost dwelt in Jesus "without measure" from the very time of His incarnation. The vision was meant to show the Church, that when Christ's ministry began, a fuller revelation of all Three Persons in the Trinity was made at once to mankind. It was meant at the same time to be a formal testimony to John the Baptist that the Messiah was before him,— that this was the promised Saviour whom God had anointed with the Holy Ghost and sent into the world,— that the time of Christ's ministry had begun,— that He who had the Spirit to bestow on men was before him,— and that His entrance on His public work was attested by the presence both of the Father and the Holy Ghost, in short, by a manifestation of all three Persons in the Trinity at one time. As a Levite, John doubtless was familiar with all the ceremonies by which the Jewish high priests and kings were solemnly inducted into their office. For his satisfaction, therefore, our Lord received visible attestation from heaven, and was publicly recognized as the Messiah, the anointed Priest, and King, and Prophet, before his forerunner's eyes. Musculus on this verse remarks, "The Spirit did not descend on Christ's account, who was never separate, either from the Holy Spirit or from the Father,— but on our account, that He who came to redeem the world, might be made manifest, through John's declaration of Him." v33.—[I knew him not.] The Greek word so rendered, both here and at John 1:31, is literally, "I had not known him." There is a difficulty connected with the expression which demands explanation. Matthew tells us, that when our Lord came to John to be baptized, John said to him, "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" (Matthew 3:14,) showing plainly by these words that he knew He was before him. And yet here we find John saying, "I knew him not." How can this apparent inconsistency be reconciled? Some think, as Chrysostom, that "John is speaking of former times, and not of the times near to his baptism." Some think, as Augustine, that it means, "I had not known till that day that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost, although I had long known him personally, and had recognized him as the Christ of God. But when He came to be baptized, it was also revealed to me, that He would confer on men the great gift of the Holy Ghost." Some think, as Brentius and Beza, that it means, "I had not known Jesus by sight until the day when He came to be baptized. I knew that He had been born of the virgin Mary, but was not personally acquainted with Him, having been myself brought up 'in the desert.' (Luke 1:80.) I had only been told by Him who sent me to baptize, that whenever the Messiah came to be baptized, I should recognize Him by the descent of the Holy Ghost. When He did come, I received a secret revelation from God that Messiah stood before me, and under the power of that feeling I confessed my unworthiness to baptize Him. But when at last I did baptize Him, I received a full confirmation of my faith by beholding the promised sign of the descent of the Holy Ghost." Those who hold this view, think the case of Samuel receiving a secret revelation about Saul, an illustration of the matter. (1 Samuel 9:15-17.) Some think, as Poole, that it means, "I knew him not perfectly and distinctly, though I had an impression when I first saw Him coming to be baptized, that He was One far greater than myself, and under that impression demurred to baptizing Him. After His baptism I saw clearly who He was." The last explanation is perhaps the simplest, and most probable. That John at one time did not know our Lord by sight at all, that he afterwards knew Him imperfectly, and that his perfect knowledge of Him, His nature, office, and work, was not attained till the time when the Spirit descended at His baptism, are points that seem clear. The time when he said, "I have need to be baptized of thee," would seem to be the time of imperfect knowledge, when the fact that Jesus was the Messiah began to dawn upon him, and made him cry out, "comest thou to me?" Chrysostom observes, that the expression is a proof "that the miracles which they say belong to Christ's childhood are false, and the invention of those who bring them to notice. For if He had begun from His early age to work miracles, neither could John have been ignorant of Him, nor would the multitude have needed a teacher to make Him known." [He that sent me...same said.] This expression indicates that John the Baptist had many special revelations of God concerning His work, of which we have no record given to us. He seems to have been taught and instructed like one of the old prophets. [He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.] The remarkable description of our Lord, here given by John the Baptist, has received three very different interpretations. Some think that it means, "This is He who shall institute Christian baptism, with which the gift of the Holy Ghost shall be connected. His baptism shall be like mine, a baptism of water. But it shall not be a baptism of water only, as mine is, but a baptism accompanied by the regenerating grace of the Spirit." Some think that it means, "This is He who shall baptize with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, and confer miraculous gifts on the church." Some think it means, "This is He who shall baptize the hearts of men, which neither thou canst do nor any other human minister. He has the prerogative of giving spiritual life. He is the giver of the Holy Spirit to all who believe on Him." I am decidedly of opinion that this third view is the correct one. It is the only one which seems at all answerable to the majesty of the person spoken of, the dignity of the speaker, and the solemnity of the occasion.— To say, "This is He who shall institute Christian baptism" seems a very lame and impotent account of the expression.— To say, "This is He who shall bestow miraculous gifts at the day of Pentecost," is a degree better, but gives a picture of our Lord's office confined to a single generation.— But to say, "This is He who, in every age of the church, will baptize the hearts of his people by the Holy Ghost, and by this baptism continually replenish the ranks of His mystical body," is saying that which exactly suits the occasion, and describes our Lord's work in the world in a worthy manner. Musculus, on this verse, remarks, "What is it to baptize with the Holy Ghost? It is to regenerate the hearts of the elect, and consecrate them into the fellowship of the sons of God." Again, he says, "It is Christ alone who baptizes with the Holy Ghost, a power which, as divine, He keeps in His own hands and never communicates to any minister." The view I have maintained is ably set forth in Bucer's commentary on this place. He says, "By the baptism of water we are received into the outward Church of God; by the baptism of the Spirit into the inward Church." The opinion of one who was Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, in the reign of Edward the Sixth, and the personal friend and adviser of Cranmer and the other English reformers, deserves much consideration. It proves, at any rate, that the doctrine of inward baptism of the Spirit, which Christ alone gives to every believer, and the identity of this baptism with conversion or new birth, are not such modern and contemptible notions as some persons are pleased to think. The untenableness of the view, held by many, that John's baptism was not the same as Christian baptism. to all intents and purposes, is ably shown by Lightfoot, in his Harmony of the Four Evangelists. If it was not Christian baptism, it would be hard to prove that some of the disciples ever received Christian baptism at all. There is not the slightest evidence that Andrew, Peter, and Philip were baptized by Jesus. The familiarity which John displays with the Holy Ghost and his work, deserves particular attention. To say, as many do, that the Holy Ghost was not known until the day of Pentecost, is saying what cannot be proved. The Holy Ghost has always been in the hearts of believers in every age of the world. His abundant outpouring is undoubtedly a leading mark of the days since Christ came into the world. But the Holy Ghost was ever in God's elect, and without Him there never was a soul saved. v34.—[I saw and bare record, &c.] This means, "I saw perfectly, and from that time have distinctly and unhesitatingly testified that the person whom you now see before you is the Christ, the Son of the living God. From the day of His baptism I have been fully convinced that this is the Messiah." John here declares his own firm conviction of our Lord's divinity and eternal generation. He was satisfied that our Lord was not the son of Mary only, but the Son of God. THESE verses ought always to be interesting to every true Christian. They describe the first beginnings of the Christian Church. Vast as that church is now, there was a time when it consisted of only two weak members. The calling of those two members is described in the passage which is now before our eyes. We see, for one thing, in these verses, what good is done by continually testifying of Christ. The first time that John the Baptist cried, "Behold the Lamb of God," no result appears to have followed. We are not told of any who heard, inquired, and believed. But when he repeated the same words the next day, we read that two of his disciples "heard him speak and followed Jesus." They were received most graciously by Him whom they followed. "They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day." Truly it was a day in their lives most eventful, and most blessed! From that day they became fast and firm disciples of the new-found Messiah. They took up the cross. They continued with Him in His temptations. They followed Him whithersoever He went. One of them at least, if not both, became a chosen apostle, and a master builder in the Christian temple. And all was owing to John the Baptist's testimony, "Behold the lamb of God." That testimony was a little seed. But it bore mighty fruits. This simple story is a pattern of the way in which good has been done to souls in every age of the Christian Church. By such testimony as that before us, and by none else, men and women are converted and saved. It is by exalting Christ, not the church,— Christ, not the sacraments,— Christ, not the ministry,— it is by this means that hearts are moved, and sinners are turned to God. To the world such testimony may seem weakness and foolishness. Yet, like the ram's horns, before whose blast the walls of Jericho fell down, this testimony is mighty to the pulling down of strongholds. The story of the crucified Lamb of God has proved in every age, the power of God unto salvation. Those who have done most for Christ's cause in every part of the world, have been men like John the Baptist. They have not cried, Behold me, or Behold the church, or Behold the ordinances, but "Behold the Lamb." If souls are to be saved, men must be pointed directly to Christ. One thing, however, must never be forgotten. There must be patient continuance in preaching and teaching the truth, if we want good to be done. Christ must be set forth again and again, as the "Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." The story of grace must be told repeatedly,— line upon line, and precept upon precept. It is the constant dropping which wears away the stone. The promise shall never be broken, that "God's word shall not return unto him void." (Isaiah 55:11.) But it is nowhere said that it shall do good the very first time that it is preached. It was not the first proclamation of John the Baptist, but the second, which made Andrew and his companion follow Jesus. We see, for another thing, what good a believer may do to others, by speaking to them about Christ. No sooner does Andrew become a disciple, than he tells his brother Simon what a discovery he has made. Like one who has unexpectedly heard good tidings, he hastens to impart it to the one nearest and dearest to him. He says to his brother, "We have found the Messias," and he "brings him to Jesus." Who can tell what might have happened if Andrew had been of a silent, reserved, and uncommunicative spirit, like many a Christian in the present day? Who can tell but his brother might have lived and died a fisherman on the Galilean lake? But happily for Simon, Andrew was not a man of this sort. He was one whose heart was so full that he must speak. And to Andrew's out-spoken testimony, under God, the great apostle Peter owed the first beginning of light in his soul. The fact before us is most striking and instructive. Out of the three first members of the Christian Church, one at least was brought to Jesus, by the private, quiet word of a relative. He seems to have heard no public preaching. He saw no mighty miracle wrought. He was not convinced by any powerful reasoning. He only heard his brother telling him that he had found a Savior himself, and at once the work began in his soul. The simple testimony of a warm-hearted brother was the first link in the chain by which Peter was drawn out of the world, and joined to Christ. The first blow in that mighty work by which Peter was made a pillar of the Church, was struck by Andrew's words, "We have found the Christ." Well would it be for the Church of Christ, if all believers were more like Andrew! Well would it be for souls if all men and women who have been converted themselves, would speak to their friends and relatives on spiritual subjects, and tell them what they have found! How much good might be done! How many might be led to Jesus, who now live and die in unbelief! The work of testifying the Gospel of the grace of God ought not to be left to ministers alone. All who have received mercy ought to find a tongue, and to declare what God has done for their souls. All who have been delivered from the power of the devil, ought to "go home and tell their friends what great things God has done for them." (Mark 5:19.) Thousands, humanly speaking, would listen to a word from a friend, who will not listen to a sermon. Every believer ought to be a home-missionary, a missionary to his family, children, servants, neighbors, and friends. Surely, if we can find nothing to say to others about Jesus, we may well doubt whether we are savingly acquainted with Him ourselves. Let us take heed that we are among those who really follow Christ, and abide with Him. It is not enough to hear Him preached from the pulpit, and to read of Him as described in books. We must actually follow Him, pour out our hearts before Him, and hold personal communion with Him. Then, and not till then, we shall feel constrained to speak of Him to others. The man who only knows Christ by the hearing of the ear, will never do much for the spread of Christ's cause in the earth. ================== Notes— v35.—[The next day.] Let John's particularity in noting days at this period of our Lord's history, be observed again in this verse. If, as many suppose, John was one of the two who this day followed Jesus and became His disciples, we can well understand that it was a memorable day to him. [John stood.] This expression seems to imply that there was some particular spot near Bethabara, where John the Baptist was in the habit of standing, to preach, and to receive those who came to be baptized. While he "stood" here, the event which follows took place. v36.—[Looking....Jesus, as he walked.] This probably means that he saw Jesus walking among the crowd of persons who were attracted to Bethabara, alone, without followers, and as yet not recognized by any one as the Messiah. Stier remarks, "John saw Jesus walking, in silent meditation, waiting for His hour, and His Father's commands; in full preparation for the world and its sin: equipped for the testimony to the truth, with that armour, which has been tested and approved in His first great spiritual conflict; and for the utterance of the new words of God, which the Father has given Him." [He saith, behold, &c.] This seems to have been a second public proclamation of our Lord's office and character, a partial repetition of what had been said the day before; and yet, as the event shows, a more effective proclamation. The same truth may do good the second time that it is preached, which does nothing the first time. v37.—[Heard....speak....followed.] The three steps described in this verse, are very noteworthy. John the Baptist "speaks." The disciples "hear." After hearing they ''follow Jesus." This is a succinct summary of God's way of saving myriads of souls. Rollock on this verse remarks, "We learn by this example, how powerful is the preaching of Christ,— yea, one or two words about Christ and the cross, how powerful are they in changing the hearts of men! Preach, if you like, about the great deeds of kings and generals, and their courage and glory;— these things will please men for a little time, but they will not convert them. But preach concerning Him that was crucified, a subject apparently ignominious and foolish,— and then the story of the cross, which is foolishness to them that perish, will be the power and wisdom of God to them that believe." v38.—[What seek ye?] We cannot doubt that our Lord knew perfectly well the hearts and motives of these two disciples. In asking this question, therefore, He spoke partly for their encouragement, and partly to stir them up to self-inquiry. "What seek ye? Is there anything that I can do for you, any truth that I can teach you, any burden that I can take away? If so, speak, and be not afraid."— "What seek ye? Are you sure that you are following me with right motives? Are you sure that you are not regarding me as a temporal ruler? Are you sure that you are not, like other Jews, seeking riches, honour, greatness, in this world? Prove your own selves, and be sure that you are seeking the right object." [Which is to say, being interpreted.] This is one of a class of expressions which shows that John wrote for Gentile readers rather than Jews. A Jew would not have needed this parenthetical comment. This same remark applies to John 1:41. [Where dwellest thou?] This question seems to imply a desire for conversation and private communion. "We would fain know more of Thee. We are drawn to Thee by John the Baptist's proclamation. We would like to go aside with Thee from the crowd, and inquire of Thee more privately and quietly, at thy dwelling, nbout the things which are upon our hearts." To apply the text, as many do, to our Lord's spiritual dwelling in "contrite hearts," &c., (Isaiah 57:15,) may produce good doctrinal and practical theology. But it is not the point of the text. v39.—[Come and see.] The great affability, and condescension of these first words of our Lord's after His public appearance as Messiah, ought not to be overlooked. The very first thing that we hear Him saying, after He has been publicly proclaimed as the "Lamb of God," is "Come and see." It is a pleasant type of what He has been ever saying to the sons of men from that day down to this, "Come and see who I am, and what I am. Come and be acquainted with me." Schottgen and Lightfoot both remark, that the expression "Come and see," is a very common one in Rabbinical writings, and would be very familiar to the Jews. [Where he dwelt.] We can only suppose that the place where our Lord was dwelling at this time, was some temporary residence in or near Bethabara. At the best, it was probably some humble lodging. It is not impossible that It was nothing more than a cave. He often "had not where to lay His head." If the two disciples had the least relic of Jewish expectation, that Messiah would appear in royal dignity and glory, our Lord's dwelling would go far to disabuse their minds of the idea. [Abode with Him that day...tenth hour.] The Jewish day began; at six o'clock in the morning. The tenth hour therefore means, four o'clock in the afternoon. At this late hour of the day, His disciples found it impossible to conclude their conversation with Jesus, and therefore remained in the same lodging with Him all night. Many commentators, from Augustine downwards, make the natural remark, that this evening must have been a blessed evening for these two disciples; and that it would have been pleasant if the conversation had been given to us! Yet if it had been good for us to know the conversation, it would doubtless have been recorded. There are no deficiencies in Scripture. v40.—[One of the two....was Andrew.] The priority of Andrew to Peter ought not to be overlooked. Peter, to whom the Church of Rome boastfully attributes a primacy among the apostles, was neither converted nor made acquainted with Christ, so soon as his brother. Who the other of these two disciples was, we are not told. It is highly probable, as Chrysostom and Theophylact conjecture, that it was John himself. On seven other occasions in this Gospel he humbly withholds his name. (John 13:23; John 19:26; John 19:35; John 20:2; John 21:7; John 21:20; John 21:24.) It is therefore very likely that he withheld it here.— The supposition of Musculus, and others, that the other disciple was a person of less zeal and sincerity than Andrew, and is therefore not named, appears to me improbable. v41.—[He first.] This expression must either mean that Andrew was the first of the two disciples who brought a brother to Jesus,— or that he was the first disciple, speaking generally, who spoke to others of the Messiah, when he had found Him,— or that he was the first to tell his brother Peter, and Peter was not the first to tell him about Christ. [We have found.] This expression implies an unexpected and joyful discovery. The evening's conversation which Andrew had held with Jesus, had convinced him that He was indeed the Christ. [The Messias....interpreted...Christ.] It is almost needless to remark, that these names mean the "anointed one." The first is Hebrew, and the second is Greek. Kings, prophets, and priests, in the Old Testament, were anointed, and our Lord as the Prophet, Priest, and King of the Church was called the Anointed One, not because He was really anointed with oil, but because he was "anointed with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 10:38.) The extent of Andrew's religious knowledge ought not to be overlooked. Poor and humble in station as he was, he seems, like all the Jews, to have known what the Old Testament prophets had foretold about Messiah, and to have been prepared to hear of a person appearing in the character of Messiah. It is one of many expressions in the Gospels which show that the lower orders among the Jews were far better acquainted with the letter of the Old Testament Scriptures, than the poor in our own day generally are with the letter of the New Testament, or indeed of any part of the Bible. Calvin remarks on Andrew's conduct, "Woe to our indolence, if we do not, after having been fully enlightened, endeavour to make others partakers of the same grace." v42.—[When Jesus beheld....said....thou art Simon.] Our Lord here displayed His perfect knowledge of all persons, names, and things. He needed not that any should tell Him who and what a person was. This knowledge was supposed by the Jews to be a peculiar attribute of Messiah, whenever He came. He was to be one of "quick understanding." (Isaiah 11:3.) Enough for us to know that it is a peculiar attribute of God. He alone knows the hearts of men. Our Lord's perfect knowledge of all hearts was one among many proofs of His divinity. The same knowledge appears again in His address to Nathanael, in this chapter, John 1:47, and in His conversation with the Samaritan woman. (John 4:18, etc.)— The effect produced in both cases, is very worthy of notice. [Cephas.] This is a Syriac word, and is equivalent to the Greek word Petros, which we render Peter. Both mean a stone, a portion of a rock. "Petra" means a rock, "Petros" a piece of a rock. Peter was the latter, but not the former. [A stone.] The marginal reading here, as Lightfoot remarks, would have been much better than that which the translators have put in our version. If the words were "Cephas, which is by interpretation Peter," it would have conveyed our Lord's meaning far more clearly. The custom of having two names appears to have been common in New Testament times. The apostle Peter seems to have been only known as "Cephas" in the Corinthian Church. Out of the five other places in the New Testament where the name Cephas is found, four are in the epistle to the Corinthians, while the name Peter is not used in that epistle at all. Nifanius gives the names of three Popes who have so grossly mistaken the origin of the word Cephas as to suppose that it is derived from the Greek word which signifies "a head," and that it indicated Peter's headship in the Church! Such a palpable blunder is one of a thousand proofs that Popes are no more infallible than other men. Calovius makes the same charge against no less a person than Cardinal Bellarmine. If it be asked why our Lord gave Simon this new name, the best answer appears to be that it was given with a special reference to the change which grace was to work in Simon's heart. Naturally impulsive, unstable, and unsteady, he was finally to become a firm, solid stone in the Church of Christ, and to testify his unshaken adherence to Christ by suffering martyrdom. Chrysostom thinks that our Lord altered Simon's name "to show that it was He who gave the old covenant, that it was He who called Abram Abraham, and Sarai Sarah, and Jacob Israel." Lightfoot, on these verses, after noticing the error which Roman Catholic writers attempt to found upon it, about Peter being the rock upon which the Church is built, makes the following curious observation,— "If they will so pertinaciously adhere to it, let us apprehend our Lord speaking prophetically, and foretelling the grand error that would spring up in the Church, namely that Peter is a rock, than which the Christian Church has known nothing more sad and destructive." Let it be noted, in leaving this passage, that the selection of such humble unlearned men as those here described, to be the first apostles and preachers of the Gospel, is a strong evidence of the truth of Christianity. A religion which was propagated by such weak instruments, in the face of persecution and opposition from the great and learned, must be a religion from God. Such results from such instrumentality cannot possibly be accounted for on natural principles. LET us observe, as we read these verses, how various are the paths by which souls are led into the narrow way of life. We are told of a man, named Philip, being added to the little company of Christ's disciples. He does not appear to have been moved, like Andrew and his companions, by the testimony of John the Baptist. He was not drawn, like Simon Peter, by the out-spoken declaration of a brother. He seems to have been called directly by Christ Himself, and the agency of man seems not to have been used in his calling. Yet in faith and life he became one with those who were disciples before him. Though led by different paths, they all entered the same road, embraced the same truths, served the same Master, and at length reached the same home. The fact before us is a deeply important one. It throws light on the history of all God's people in every age, and of every tongue. There are diversities of operations in the saving of souls. All true Christians are led by one Spirit, washed in one blood, serve one Lord, lean on one Savior, believe one truth, and walk by one general rule. But all are not converted in one and the same manner. All do not pass through the same experience. In conversion, the Holy Ghost acts as a sovereign. He calleth every one severally as He will. A careful recollection of this point may save us much trouble. We must beware of making the experience of other believers the measure of our own. We must beware of denying another's grace, because he has not been led by the same way as ourselves. Has a man got the real grace of God? This is the only question that concerns us.— Is he a penitent man? Is he a believer? Does he live a holy life?— Provided these inquiries can be answered satisfactorily, we may well be content. It matters nothing by what path a man has been led, if he has only been led at last into the right way. Let us observe, secondly, in these verses, how much of Christ there is in the Old Testament Scriptures. We read that when Philip described Christ to Nathanael, he says, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write." Christ is the sum and substance of the Old Testament. To Him the earliest promises pointed in the days of Adam, and Enoch, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. To Him every sacrifice pointed in the ceremonial worship appointed at Mount Sinai. Of Him every high priest was a type, and every part of the tabernacle was a shadow, and every judge and deliverer of Israel was a figure. He was the prophet like unto Moses, whom the Lord God promised to send, and the King of the house of David, who came to be David's Lord as well as son. He was the Son of the virgin, and the Lamb, foretold by Isaiah,— the righteous Branch mentioned by Jeremiah,— the true Shepherd, foreseen by Ezekiel,— the Messenger of the Covenant, promised by Malachi,— and the Messiah, who, according to Daniel, was to be cut off, though not for Himself. The further we read in the volume of the Old Testament, the clearer do we find the testimony about Christ. The light which the inspired writers enjoyed in ancient days was, at best, but dim, compared to that of the Gospel. But the coming Person they all saw afar off, and on whom they all fixed their eyes, was one and the same. The Spirit, which was in them, testified of Christ. (1 Peter 1:11.) Do we stumble at this saying? Do we find it hard to see Christ in the Old Testament, because we do not see His name? Let us be sure that the fault is all our own. It is our spiritual vision which is to blame, and not the book. The eyes of our understanding need to be enlightened. The veil has yet to be taken away. Let us pray for a more humble, childlike, and teachable spirit, and let us take up "Moses and the prophets" again. Christ is there, though our eyes may not yet have seen Him. May we never rest till we can subscribe to our Lord's words about the Old Testament Scriptures, "They are they which testify of me." (John 5:39.) Let us observe, thirdly, in these verses, the good advice which Philip gave to Nathanael. The mind of Nathanael was full of doubts about the Savior, of whom Philip told Him. "Can there any good thing," he said, "come out of Nazareth?" And what did Philip reply? He said, "Come and see." Wiser counsel than this it would be impossible to conceive! If Philip had reproved Nathanael's unbelief, he might have driven him back for many a day, and given offence. If he had reasoned with him, he might have failed to convince him, or might have confirmed him in his doubts. But by inviting him to prove the matter for himself, he showed his entire confidence in the truth of his own assertion, and his willingness to have it tested and proved. And the result shows the wisdom of Philip's words. Nathanael owed his early acquaintance with Christ to that frank invitation, "Come and see." If we call ourselves true Christians, let us never be afraid to deal with people about their souls as Philip dealt with Nathanael. Let us invite them boldly to make proof of our religion. Let us tell them confidently that they cannot know its real value until they have tried it. Let us assure them that vital Christianity courts every possible inquiry. It has no secrets. It has nothing to conceal. Its faith and practice are spoken against, just because they are not known. Its enemies speak evil of things with which they are not acquainted. They understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm. Philip's mode of dealing, we may be sure, is one principal way to do good. Few are ever moved by reasoning and argument. Still fewer are frightened into repentance. The man who does most good to souls, is often the simple believer who says to his friends, "I have found a Savior; come and see Him." Let us observe, lastly, in these verses, the high character which Jesus gives of Nathanael. He calls him "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile." Nathanael, there can be no doubt, was a true child of God, and a child of God in difficult times. He was one of a very little flock. Like Simeon and Anna, and other pious Jews, he was living by faith and waiting prayerfully for the promised Redeemer, when our Lord's ministry began. He had that which grace alone can give, an honest heart, a heart without guile. His knowledge was probably small. His spiritual eyesight was dim. But he was one who had lived carefully up to his light. He had diligently used such knowledge as he possessed. His eye had been single, though his vision had not been strong. His spiritual judgment had been honest, though it had not been powerful. What he saw in Scripture, he had held firmly, in spite of Pharisees and Sadducees, and all the fashionable religion of the day. He was an honest Old Testament believer, who had stood alone. And here was the secret of our Lord's peculiar commendation! He declared Nathanael to be a true son of Abraham,— a Jew inwardly, possessing circumcision in the spirit as well as in the letter,— an Israelite in heart, as well as a son of Jacob in the flesh. Let us pray that we may be of the same spirit as Nathanael. An honest, unprejudiced mind,— a child-like willingness to follow the truth, wherever the truth may lead us,— a simple, hearty desire to be guided, taught, and led by the Spirit,— a thorough determination to use every spark of light which we have,— are a possession of priceless value. A man of this spirit may live in the midst of much darkness, and be surrounded by every possible disadvantage to his soul. But the Lord Jesus will take care that such a man does not miss the way to heaven. "The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way." (Psalms 25:9.) ================== Notes— v43.—[The day following.] This is the fourth successive day which is specially named by John, and its events described. The first contained John the Baptist's reply to the priests and Levites,— the second, his public announcement of our Lord as the Lamb of God,— the third, the calling of Andrew and his companion, and Peter,— the fourth describes the calling of Philip and Nathanael. [Would go forth.] The Greek word rendered "would," signifies that our Lord "willed or had a will." [Findeth Philip.] It does not appear where Philip was when Jesus called him. He must either have been at Bethabara, among John's hearers,— or at some place on the road from Bethabara to Galilee,— or at his own native place, Bethsaida. The last is perhaps the most probable idea. [Follow me.] This simple sentence describes the direct quickening voice of an almighty Saviour. It is evident that the power of the Holy Ghost accompanied our Lord's words, and that as soon as they were spoken, Philip, like Matthew the publican, arose, left all, and became a disciple. In conversion God acts as a sovereign. One is called in one way, and another in another. Rollock observes on this verse, "This teaches us that Christ is able to call any one whom He pleases into the kingdom of heaven, without the ministry either of angel or man." v44.—[Philip...of Bethsaida...city... Andrew...Peter.] This verse seems to make it probable that Philip's conversion and calling took place at Bethsaida. Andrew and Peter having been converted and become companions of Jesus on His way to Galilee, would appear to have taken Him to their own native place, Bethsaida. v45.—[We have found him.] Philip, like his fellow-citizen, Andrew, seems to have expected the appearance of Messiah. Chrysostom remarks, "Seest thou what a thoughtful mind he had, how assiduously he meditates on the writings of Moses, and expected the advent ? The expression, 'we have found,' belongs always to those who are in some way seeking." [Him....Moses....prophets did write.] Here, as in the case of Andrew, we should notice the familiarity with the general contents of Scripture which a poor Jew like Philip possessed. He thoroughly understood that "Moses and the prophets" held forth the promise of a coming Redeemer, and that a better Priest, Prophet, and King were foretold in their writings. "The Old Testament," as the Church of England Article wisely declares, "is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old Testament and New, everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ." We must beware, in these latter days, of despising the Old Testament. It is one by-path to infidelity. [Jesus of Nazareth...son of Joseph.] Philip here describes our Lord according to the common report about Him, and in all probability according to his own present knowledge. His heart was at present better than his head. The miraculous conception of Christ was hidden from him. Yet it is not unworthy of remark, that this ignorant account of our Lord was very likely the cause of Nathanael's doubt and prejudice, exhibited in the next verse. The mistakes of young converts are often mighty stumbling-blocks in the way of other people's souls. We must not, however, despise Philip because of his mistake. Rollock remarks, "I had rather a man should stammer and babble about Christ, providing he does it sincerely and from his heart, and has before him as an object the glory of God and salvation of men, than say many things eloquently about Christ, for ostentation and vain glory." v46.—[Can any good thing...come...Nazareth?] This question shows the low estimate in which Nazareth, where our Lord had been brought up, was held. It was an obscure town in a corner of Galilee, not far from the borders of the province, and its reputation seems to have been very bad. Nathanael could not remember any prophecy about Messiah coming out of Nazareth, and at once stumbled at the idea of Him whom "Moses and the prophets" had described, belonging to such a contemptible place. The condescension of our Lord in living thirty years in such a place as Nazareth, is strongly brought out by Nathanael's question. Augustine, Cyril, Origen, and others thought that the sentence before us ought not to be interpreted as a question, but as a simple affirmation, "Some good thing may come out of Nazareth." Wycliffe's version also takes this view. The sentence would then be the expression of a calm and unprejudiced mind, acknowledging the possibility of good coming from Nazareth. Musculus thinks it possible, in this view of the expression, that Nathanael might have had in his mind the remarkable prophetical saying quoted in Matthew, "He shall be called a Nazarene." The judgment of the great majority of interpreters agrees with our own translation, that it is a question, and not an assertion; and it is by far the more probable view of the text. [Come and see.] How common this expression was among the Jewish religious teachers has been already noticed. Philip's wisdom in not arguing and reasoning with Nathanael, should be observed. Ford gives a good quotation from Adam, "Little good comes by disputing. Pride is generally at the bottom of it, and not charity or love of truth; and it is seldom managed with decency or candour enough to produce any good effect. Let fall a word in season, and wait in patience till the rain drops on it from heaven." v47.—[In whom is no guile.] It is very likely that in using this expression our Lord referred to the 32nd Psalm, where the character of the godly man is described. He is not only one whose iniquities are forgiven, but one "in whose lips there is no guile." The expression implies a true heart, a really converted man, a genuine son of Abraham by faith, as well as a son according to the flesh. Hutcheson observes, "The true mark of a true Israelite in spirit, is not sinlessness or perfection, but sincerity." v48.—[Whence knowest thou me?] This question implies Nathanael's surprise that Jesus should exhibit any knowledge of his character. [When...under...fig-tree I saw thee.] The common opinion about this expression is, that Nathanael was praying or holding communion with God under the fig-tree. It may be so. We are told nothing about it, and are entirely left to conjecture. If it had been good for us to know, it would have been told us. Sufficient for us to understand that when Nathanael thought he was alone and no eye upon him, the Lord Jesus, by His divine power of seeing and knowing all things, was perfectly acquainted with all that Nathanael said, thought, and did. His "eyes are in every place." (Proverbs 15:3.) Chrysostom and Theophylact think that the expression only refers to the conversation between Philip and Nathanael about Jesus, -which had taken place under a fig-tree. Grotius takes the same view. Grill mentions a tradition in the Syriac dictionary, "that Nathanael's mother had laid him under a fig-tree when the infants were slain at Bethlehem by Herod," (Matthew 2:16,) and that our Lord showed His perfect knowledge by referring to this fact. Heinsius thinks there is a reference to the prophecy of Zechariah, "In that day ye shall call every man his neighbour, under the vine and under the fig-tree," (Zechariah 3:10,) and that hence Nathanael drew the inference that Messiah's days were come, and Messiah before him. Augustine sees an allegory in the fig-tree, and gravely says, "that as Adam and Eve, when they had sinned, made themselves aprons of fig-leaves, fig-leaves must signify sins. Nathanael therefore being under the fig-tree, signifies being under the shadow of death"! v49.—[Thou art...Son of God...King of Israel.] These words are the outburst of a heart convinced at once that Jesus was the Messiah. They are a noble confession that our Lord was that divine Person who was promised to come into the world to redeem sinners, and that King who was prophesied of as the future Gatherer and Ruler of the tribes of Israel. Whether Nathanael clearly understood the nature of our Lord's kingdom at this time, may be reasonably doubted. But that he saw, like Peter, that He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, we cannot doubt. The restoring of the kingdom to Israel was a subject which we know from other passages of Scripture, was one of the last which the first disciples were able to understand aright. (Acts 1:6.) The history of Nathanael's calling at this point should be compared with that of the woman of Samaria, in the fourth chapter of this Gospel. It is striking to observe that a discovery and conviction of our Lord's perfect knowledge of the most secret things, was in both cases the turning point. It should not be forgotten, that the title "King of Israel," was one which our Lord never refused during His ministry, though He never took to Himself His great power and actually reigned. The angel Gabriel foretold that the "Lord God would give unto Him the throne of His father David, and that He would reign over the house of Jacob, and that of His kingdom there would be no end." (Luke 1:32-33.) When the wise men came from the East, they inquired for him who was born "King of the Jews." (Matthew 2:2.) When our Lord was crucified, the title over His head was, "King of the Jews." All this shall yet be literally true. Christ shall yet be King in Zion, and reign over the gathered and restored tribes of Israel at His second coming. And then the words of Nathanael shall be seen completely fulfilled. He shall be acknowledged by all as the "Son of God, and King of Israel." v50.—[Believest thou?] It admits of a question whether this expression would not be better rendered, as it might be with perfect grammatical correctness, "thou believest." It would then be very like our Lord's words to Thomas, "Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed." (John 20:29.) The sense would be, "Because I said I saw thee under the fig-tree thou believest. It is well. Great is thy faith. But I tell thee for thy comfort and encouragement, that thou shalt one day see far greater proofs of my divinity and Messiahship than these." Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, and Cranmer's versions, all render the expression as an affirmation, and not as a question. Aretius maintains the same view. v51.—[Verily, verily I say.] This expression is peculiar to John's Gospel, and very remarkable. It is the word which is familiar to all Christians, "Amen," twice repeated. It is found twentyfive times in this Gospel, always at the beginning of a sentence, and always used by Christ. In every place it implies a very solemn, emphatic assertion of some great truth, or heart-searching fact. No other writer in the New Testament, except John, ever gives the double "Amen." [Hereafter...ye shall see...heaven...angels...Son of man.] This prediction is very remarkable. It should be carefully observed, that it is not addressed to Nathanael alone. The preceding verse says, "thou shalt see." The present verse says, "ye shall see,"— that is, "thou and all my other disciples." About the true meaning of the prediction, commentators differ exceedingly. Arguing, as nearly all do, that the words plainly refer to Jacob's vision of the ladder reaching from heaven to earth, (Genesis 28:12,) they disagree about the way in which the prediction is fulfilled. Some think, as Stier, that the prediction must be interpreted figuratively, and that it was fulfilled when our Lord was upon earth. They think it only means that Nathanael and the other disciples would see a still fuller revelation of Christ and the Gospel by and bye. They would see a figurative fulfilment of Jacob's vision, and a way opened from earth to heaven for all true Israelites or believers. They would see still greater proofs, in the shape of miracles and signs, that Jesus was the Son of God. Heaven, in a spiritual sense shut by the sin of the first Adam, would be opened by the obedience of the second Adam. "The heavenly ladder," says Bonaventura, quoted by Calovius, "was broken in Adam and repaired in Christ."— According to this view, "the angels of God" in the text mean nothing in particular, which, to say the least, seems a very loose and unsatisfactory explanation. Others think, as Rollock, that the prediction must be interpreted literally, and that it was fulfilled while our Lord was on earth. They think it was accomplished when our Lord was transfigured,— when an angel appeared in the garden of Gethsemane,— and when our Lord ascended on the Mount of Olives. This view also seems very unsatisfactory. The transfiguration and the agony in the garden, were not seen by Nathanael at all. There is nothing whatever said about angels appearing, either at the transfiguration or the ascension. And as to "angels ascending and descending," there is nothing at any period of the Gospel history at all answering to the expression. The only true and satisfactory view, I believe, is that which makes the whole prediction apply to events which are still future. Our Lord spoke of His second coming and kingdom. When He comes the second time to take His great power and reign, the words of this text shall be literally fulfilled. His believing people shall see heaven open, and a constant communication kept up between heaven and earth,— the tabernacle of God with men, and the angels visibly ministering to the King of Israel, and King of all the earth. The context confirms me in this view of the text. Nathanael believed Jesus to be the Messiah, when he was lowly and poor. Jesus rewards his faith by assuring him that, lowly as He now seems, He shall one day come in the clouds of heaven and reign as a King. I am further confirmed by the striking likeness between our Lord's words here, and those He addressed to the chief priests, in the day that He was arraigned as a prisoner before them: "Hereafter ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Matthew 26:64.) This view of the prediction is maintained by Gomarus. I am aware that some maintain, in opposition to the view I support, that the Greek word rendered "hereafter," must mean "from henceforth," i.e. "immediately after the present time, and ever hereafter," and does not imply a distant event. In reply, I would have it specially noted, that the Greek word here translated "hereafter," is the very same that is used by our Lord in the solemn words, just quoted, which he addressed to the chief priests when He was arraigned. (Luke 22:69.) In that case, there cannot be any reasonable doubt that He spoke of a far distant event and time. I believe, that in like manner, He speaks of a far distant event and time in this place. As to the nature of Christ's future kingdom, and the intercourse which shall then be kept up by angels between earth and heaven, this is not the place to speak. I only remark, that the words before us will probably receive a far more real and literal accomplishment than many of us are expecting. It is worthy of remark that Nathanael calls our Lord "the Son of God." Jesus in His prediction tells him he shall see angels ascending and descending on the "Son of man." He whom Nathanael now saw as a man, would yet appear as man glorified in the heavenly kingdom. He would even then be God-man. The expression "Son of man," here first used by John, seems derived, as Chemnitius says, from Daniel's words in a prophecy about Messiah. (Daniel 7:13-14.) It is never applied to our Lord by any but Himself, except by Stephen. (Acts 7:56.) Lightfoot thinks that "it is used so often by our Saviour about Himself, as intimating that he is the second Adam, the true seed of the woman." In leaving this passage, the question naturally arises, Who was Nathanael? How is it that we hear so little afterwards of so good a man and so clear-sighted a believer? Some think, as Augustine and others, that Nathanael was purposely not placed among our Lord's immediate companions and apostles, because he was a man of learning and knowledge, lest any should say that our Lord chose learned men to be His first ministers. I can see nothing in this argument. There is no evidence to my own mind that Nathanael was more learned than other Jews of humble birth, in our Lord's time. Moreover he was a friend of Philip, one of our Lord's apostles, and most probably a man of similar position and attainments.— In fact we are told elsewhere that he lived at "Cana of Galilee." (John 21:2.) Some think, because Nathanael lived at Cana, that he was the same person as the apostle Simon the Canaanite. (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18.) Some think, that he was Stephen the martyr, because Stephen saw the heavens opened in vision. (Acts 7:56.) The most probable opinion to my own mind is, that Nathanael was the apostle who is called elsewhere Bartholomew, and who, like others of the apostles, had two names. In favour of this opinion there are three remarkable facts. The first is, that in three lists of the twelve apostles out of four, the names of Philip and Bartholomew are always found together. (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14.)— The second is, that Nathanael is specially mentioned after our Lord's ascension as a companion of Peter, Thomas, James, John, and two other disciples.— The third is, that John never once mentions the name of Bartholomew in his Gospel.— The objection that Nathanael's name is never mentioned by Matthew, Mark, or Luke, is of no weight. No one of the three, it may be replied, tells us that Peter was called Cephas. Only Matthew gives Jude, the brother of James, the name of Lebbæus. The point happily is not one of any particular importance. I only say that the conjectural probability that Nathanael was an apostle, and was the same as Bartholomew, seems to me very strong and well founded. In leaving this chapter the observation of Aretius is worth quoting. He remarks that the chapter is singularly rich in names or epithets applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. He numbers up the following twenty-one. 1. The Word. 2. God. 3. Life. 4. Light. 5. The true light. 6. The only begotten of the Father. 7. Full of grace and truth. 8. Jesus Christ. 9. The only begotten Son. 10. The Lord. 11. The Lamb of God. 12. Jesus. 13. A Man. 14. The Son of God. 15. Rabbi. 16. Teacher. 17. Messiah. 18. Christ. 19. The Son of Joseph. 20. The King of Israel. 21. The Son of man. THESE verses describe a miracle which should always possess a special interest in the eyes of a true Christian. It is the first, in order of time, of the many mighty works which Jesus did, when He was upon earth. We are distinctly told, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee."— Like every other miracle which John was inspired to record, it is related with great minuteness and particularity. And, like every other miracle in John's Gospel, it is rich in spiritual lessons. We learn, firstly, from these verses, how honorable in the sight of Christ is the estate of matrimony. To be present at a "marriage" was almost the first public act of our Lord's earthly ministry. Marriage is not a sacrament, as the Church of Rome asserts. It is simply a state of life ordained by God for man's benefit. But it is a state which ought never to be spoken of with levity, or regarded with disrespect. The Prayerbook service has well described it, as "an honorable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, and signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church." Society is never in a healthy condition, and true religion never flourishes in that land where the marriage tie is lightly esteemed. They who lightly esteem it have not the mind of Christ. He who "beautified and adorned the estate of matrimony by His presence and first miracle that He wrought in Cana of Galilee," is One who is always of one mind. "Marriage," says the Holy Ghost by Paul, "is honorable in all." (Hebrews 13:4.) One thing, however, ought not to be forgotten. Marriage is a step which so seriously affects the temporal happiness and spiritual welfare of two immortal souls, that it ought never to be taken in hand "unadvisedly, lightly, wantonly, and without due consideration." To be truly happy, it should be undertaken "reverently, discreetly, soberly, and in the fear of God." Christ's blessing and presence are essential to a happy wedding. The marriage at which there is no place for Christ and His disciples, is not one that can justly be expected to prosper. We learn, secondly, from these verses, that there are times when it is lawful to be merry and rejoice. Our Lord Himself sanctioned a wedding-feast by His own presence. He did not refuse to be a guest at "a marriage in Cana of Galilee." "A feast," it is written, "is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry." (Ecclesiastes 10:19.) Our Lord, in the passage before us, countenances both the feast and the use of wine. True religion was never meant to make men melancholy. On the contrary, it was intended to increase real joy and happiness among men. The servant of Christ unquestionably ought to have nothing to do with races, balls, theaters, and such-like amusements, which tend to frivolity and dissipation, if not to sin. But he has no right to hand over innocent recreations and family gatherings to the devil and the world. The Christian who withdraws entirely from the society of his fellow-men, and walks the earth with a face as melancholy as if he was always attending a funeral, does injury to the cause of the Gospel. A cheerful, kindly spirit is a great recommendation to a believer. It is a positive misfortune to Christianity when a Christian cannot smile. A merry heart, and a readiness to take part in all innocent mirth, are gifts of inestimable value. They go far to soften prejudices, to take up stumbling-blocks out of the way, and to make way for Christ and the Gospel. The subject no doubt is a difficult and delicate one. On no point of Christian practice is it so hard to hit the mean between that which is lawful and that which is unlawful, between that which is right and that which is wrong. It is very hard indeed to be both merry and wise. High spirits soon degenerate into levity. Acceptance of many invitations to feasts soon leads to waste of time, and begets leanness of soul. Frequent eating and drinking at other men's tables, soon lowers a Christian's tone of religion. Going often into company is a heavy strain on spirituality of heart. Here, if anywhere, God's children have need to be on their guard. Each must know his own strength and natural temperament, and act accordingly. One believer can go without risk where another cannot. Happy is he who can use his Christian liberty without abusing it! It is possible to be sorely wounded in soul at marriage feasts and the tables of friends. One golden rule on the subject may be laid down, the use of which will save us much trouble. Let us take care that we always go to feasts in the spirit of our divine Master, and that we never go where He would not have gone. Like Him, let us endeavor to be always "about our Father's business." (Luke 2:49.) Like Him, let us willingly promote joy and gladness, but let us strive that it may be sinless joy, if not joy in the Lord. Let us endeavor to bring the salt of grace into every company, and to drop the word in season in every ear we address. Much good may be done in society by giving a healthy tone to conversation. Let us never be ashamed to show our colors, and to make men see whose we are and whom we serve. We may well say, "Who is sufficient for these things?" But if Christ went to a marriage feast in Cana there is surely something that Christians can do on similar occasions. Let them only remember that if they go where their Master went, they must go in their Master's spirit. We learn lastly, from these verses, the Almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are told of a miracle which He wrought at the marriage feast, when the wine failed. By a mere act of will He changed water into wine, and so supplied the need of all the guests. The manner in which the miracle was worked deserves especial notice. We are not told of any outward visible action which preceded or accompanied it. It is not said that He touched the waterpots containing the water that was made wine. It is not said that He commanded the water to change its qualities, or that He prayed to His Father in Heaven. He simply willed the change, and it took place. We read of no prophet or apostle in the Bible who ever worked a miracle after this fashion. He who could do such a mighty work, in such a manner, was nothing less than very God. It is a comfortable thought that the same almighty power of will which our Lord here displayed is still exercised on behalf of His believing people. They have no need of His bodily presence to maintain their cause. They have no reason to be cast down because they cannot see Him with their eyes interceding for them, or touch Him with their hands, that they may cling to Him for safety. If He "wills" their salvation and the daily supply of all their spiritual need, they are as safe and well provided for as if they saw Him standing by them. Christ's will is as mighty and effectual as Christ's deed. The will of Him who could say to the Father, "I will that they whom thou hast given me be with me where I am," is a will that has all power in heaven and earth, and must prevail. (John 17:24.) Happy are those who, like the disciples, believe on Him by whom this miracle was wrought. A greater marriage feast than that of Cana will one day be held, when Christ Himself will be the bridegroom and believers will be the bride. A greater glory will one day be manifested, when Jesus shall take to Himself His great power and reign. Blessed will they be in that day who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb! (Revelation 19:9.) ================== Notes— v1.—[The third day.] The question naturally arises, "What day was this? From what day was it the third?" The most probable answer is, that it was the third day after the last event described in the preceding chapter, the third day after Nathanael was brought to Jesus and became a disciple. The meaning therefore is, "The third day after the conversation between Jesus and Nathanael." [A marriage in Cana.] Let it be remembered, that we are told elsewhere that Nathanael was an inhabitant of Cana. (John 21:2.) This makes it far from improbable, that Nathanael, after he became a disciple, invited our Lord to visit the place where he lived. Cana is a place not mentioned in the Old Testament. Robinson, in his Biblical Researches, says it was a village about three hours' journey from Nazareth. [The mother of Jesus was there.] We must suppose that Mary was in some way connected with the bride or bridegroom, and was therefore present at the marriage and assisting in the arrangements of the feast. Without some such supposition it is difficult to understand her speaking to the servants, as she afterwards does. The absence of Joseph's name, both here and in other places where the mother of our Lord is mentioned in the Gospels and Acts, has induced most commentators to think that Joseph was dead when our Lord began His public ministry. The point is one of which we know nothing except by conjecture. It deserves notice, however, that the Jews of Capernaum speak of Jesus as "the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know." (John 6:42.) If it had been profitable to us to know more about Joseph, we should have been told more. The Roman Catholic Church has already given him a superstitious reverence, upon the authority of tradition, and without the slightest warrant of Scripture. What would have not been said about Joseph by the Romish Church, if he had been more prominently mentioned in God's Word? Lightfoot points out that a comparison of Mar 3:18, Mark 6:3, and John 19:25, makes it exceedingly probable that Mary's sister, called elsewhere Mary, the wife of Cleophas or Alpheus, and all her family, lived at Cana. He observes, that in the list of our Lord's "brethren" or cousins we find the following names,— James, Joses, Juda, and Simon. Of these he thinks that James, Juda, and Simon were apostles. James the apostle is expressly called "the brother of our Lord," and the son of Alpheus, and Jude is expressly called brother of this James (Galatians 1:19; Jude 1:1.) The remaining brother, Simon, he thinks was the apostle who is called Simon the Canaanite. This, Lightfoot argues, is a proof that his father and mother lived at Cana; and hence he concludes that this marriage feast was in the house of Alpheus. That Alpheus and Cleophas were the same person is a general and well-founded opinion. v2.—[Jesus was called...disciples.] Our Lord was doubtless invited as Mary's son. His disciples were invited as His friends and companions. We cannot, of course, suppose, at so early a period of our Lord's ministry, that He was recognized as a religious teacher, or those with Him as disciples of a new faith. The disciples here spoken of must be the five mentioned in the last chapter, viz., Andrew and his companion, (probably John,) Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael. [To the marriage.] We know nothing about the names of the bride and bridegroom. There is a legend among Romish writers that the bridegroom was John the apostle, and that though married, John left wife and home at once, in order to become Christ's disciple! The whole story is utterly destitute of Scriptural foundation, and a tissue of improbabilities. Baronius conjectures that the bridegroom was Simon the Canaanite, but without any proof worth mentioning. Let it be noted, that the presence of Jesus, and His disciples, and Mary at a marriage, is a significant fact, which stands out in strong contrast to the Patristic and Roman Catholic doctrine, of the imperfection of the state of marriage compared to that of celibacy. "Forbidding to marry " is a doctrine of Antichrist, not of Christ. (1 Timothy 4:3.) The Roman Catholic argument, that Christ, by His presence, made marriage a sacrament, is utterly worthless. Dyke remarks that we might as well call feasts and burials sacraments, because Christ was present at them. He says, "There is required a word of institution to make a sacrament. Let the Papists show any such word here used. And if Christ did make marriage a sacrament, why do they call it a work of the flesh. Are sacraments works of the flesh?" The suggestion of some modern writers, that our Lord's presence at a marriage feast condemns those Christians who decline to go to such amusements as balls, and routs, and dancing-parties, has no weight in it at all. The objects for which people meet together at a marriage feast and at a ball are widely different. The one is a mere irreligious assembly for pleasure and recreation of a very questionable tendency, entailing late hours, and ministering to worldliness, levity, and the love of display. The other is a gathering of friends to witness the most important step in life that two persons can take, and a gathering closely connected with a religious ceremony. v3.—[When they wanted wine.] The Greek words so rendered mean literally, "Wine having failed." This circumstance probably shows the poor and humble condition of those to whose marriage Jesus was invited. His acquaintances and those of His mother were not wealthy persons. It throws light on this expression, and indeed on the whole story, to remember that a marriage feast among the Jews was often an affair of several days' duration, and an occasion when many were invited. Consequently it entailed not only much expense, but a considerable consumption of food and wine. Thus Samson's marriage feast lasted seven days. (Judges 15:10-18.) Thus the marriage feast described in the parable of the King's Son, was a feast which large numbers were invited to attend. (Matthew 22:2-10, &c.) This being the case, we may well understand that in the feasts of those who were not wealthy the wine might soon run short, without there having been any excess of drinking. So it seems to have happened in the case before us. [The mother of Jesus....saith....no wine.] This little sentence has given rise to various and strange interpretations. Some have thought, as Bengel, that Mary suggested to our Lord that it was time for Him and His disciples to depart and leave the feast, in order to spare the feelings of the bride and bridegroom, and to avoid exposing their poverty. Some have thought, as Calvin, that she wished our Lord to occupy the minds of the guests by profitable discourse, and so to take off their attention from the deficiency of wine. By far the most reasonable and probable idea is, that Mary conjectured that our Lord might in some way supply the deficiency of wine. How it would be done she could not tell. There is not the slightest ground for supposing that our Lord , had ever worked a miracle up to this time. But it would be foolish to suppose that Mary did not remember well all the miraculous circumstances of our Lord's birth, and all the words spoken before by the angel Gabriel concerning Him.— We cannot doubt, that although our Lord had lived a quiet life at Nazareth for thirty years, and done no miracles, His mother must have observed in Him a perfection of word and deed utterly unlike the behaviour of common men.— We cannot doubt that she was aware of all the events of the last few weeks,— our Lord's baptism by John, John's public proclamation of Him as the Messiah, and the gathering around Jesus of a small knot of disciples.— Remembering all these things, we surely need not wonder that Mary's expectations were greatly raised. She looked for her Son speedily doing some great miracle. She was in daily expectation that He would prove Himself the Messiah by some mighty act. And it was under these feelings that she turned to Him, saying, "They have no wine." It is as though she said,— "Surely the time is come for declaring thyself. Manifest thy power, as I have long expected thee to do, by providing a supply of wine." The argument which the Roman Catholics draw from this expression in favour of Mary's intercession in heaven for sinners, and the consequent lawfulness of praying to her, is utterly worthless, and most unhappy. For one thing, it does not follow, because the petitions of living saints are heard upon earth, that the petitions of dead saints in heaven are effectual. For another thing, it is an unfortunate fact, that this petition, the only one that we ever find addressed to our Lord by Mary, brought from Him an immediate rebuke! Men must be in great straits for an argument when they can reason in this way in defense of the invocation of saints. Melancthon, Chemnitius, and others, think that this want of wine at the marriage feast is purposely mentioned in order to remind married persons, or those who intend marriage, that matrimony brings with it cares as well as comforts, and specially cares from poverty. They that marry do well, and with Christ's blessing will have happiness. But they must not expect to escape "trouble in the flesh" from the very day of marriage. (1 Corinthians 7:28.) v4.—[Jesus saith, Woman, what, &c., &c.] This remarkable verse has naturally attracted great attention. In interpreting it, it is very important to avoid the extremes into which some Protestants and nearly all Roman Catholic writers have fallen, in their interpretations. On the one side we must not lay too much stress on the expression "Woman." It is surely a mistake to suppose, as Calvin and others suggest, that it conveys any reproof, or is anywise inconsistent with reverence and respect. The very same expression was used by our Lord when He addressed His mother for the last time on the cross, and affectionately commended her to John's care. He said, "Woman, behold thy son." (John 19:26.) Mary was an erring woman, like all other believing women, but we must not lay more blame on her than Scripture warrants. On the other side, it is useless to deny that our Lord's words were intended, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius say, to be a rebuke to Mary. She erred here, perhaps from affectionate desire to bring honour to her Son, as she erred on other occasions. The words before us were meant to remind her, that she must henceforth leave our Lord to choose His own times and modes of acting. The season of subjection to her and Joseph was over. The season of his public ministry had at length begun. In carrying on that ministry, she must not presume to suggest to Him. The utter contrariety of this verse to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church about Mary is too palpable to be explained away. She was not without error and sin, as Romish writers have dared to assert, and was not meant to be prayed to and adored. If our Lord would not allow His mother even to suggest to Him the working of a miracle, we may well suppose that all Roman Catholic prayers to Mary, and especially prayers entreating her to "command her Son," are most offensive and blasphemous in His eyes. The Greek expression, rendered "what have I to do with thee," would be translated literally, "what to me and thee?" It is an elliptical expression, of which the full meaning probably is, "What is there in common to me and thee?" "My thoughts," as Bengel says, "are one thing, and thine another."— It is the same phrase that is used in an interrogative form in Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24; Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28; and in an imperative form in Matthew 27:19. [Mine hour is not yet come.] The simplest and most reasonable view of these words is to refer them to Christ's "hour" or time for working a miracle. It is like the expression, "my time is not yet full come." (John 7:8.) Our Lord did not tell Mary that He would not work a miracle. But He would have her know that she Must not expect Him to do mighty works to please His relatives after the flesh. He would only work a miracle, upon this or any other occasion, when the fitting season for it, the time appointed in God's counsel, had arrived. There is a curious idea maintained by Augustine, Wordsworth, and others, that our Lord here referred to the hour of His crucifixion, and that He meant, "My hour is not yet come for recognizing thee and honouring thee publicly as my mother, but I shall do it one day on the cross." This however seems a very far-fetched and improbable application of the words. v5.—[His mother saith...do it.] Two things are very noteworthy in this verse. One is the meekness with which Mary submitted to the gentle rebuke which came from our Lord's mouth, in the last verse. The other is the firm faith which she still exhibited in our Lord's power to work a miracle in order to supply the lack of wine, and in the probability of His working it. Dyke observes, "The direction which Mary gives to the servants belongs to us all. We must perform simple obedience to Christ in all things; His sayings must be our doings. No reasoning of the matter must there be, no inquiry, as into men's commandments and speeches; but this must suffice, 'Christ hath said it.' This is the blind obedience which Jesuits yield to their superiors, but it is the obedience that belongs to Christ. Many will do something that Christ says, but not whatsoever He says." It is not, perhaps going too far to say, that after observing her Son's perfect life and perfect wisdom during thirty years at Nazareth, Mary spoke the words before us with special confidence, and with a greater depth of meaning than appears on the surface of the sentence.— "Whatsoever He says deserves attention. Whatsoever He says, do it."— At any rate the verse contains a deep practical lesson for the whole Church of Christ. Whatsoever Christ says, let us obey and do. v6.—[Six water-pots....after the manner....Jews.] John mentions these details in describing the miracle, with a special reference to Gentile readers. He meant them to understand that there was nothing remarkable in the circumstance that there were six large water-pots of stone in the place where the feast was held. The peculiar customs of the Jews about ceremonial washings and purifyings, made it necessary to have a large supply of water at hand. The words of Mark throw light on the verse before us:— "The Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders," &c. (Mark 7:3, &c.) The presence of the six water-pots, therefore, could not arise from collusion or pre-arrangement. It was a natural consequence of Jewish habits in our Lord's times. [Two or three firkins apiece.] Many foolish and unprofitable remarks have been built on this expression, as to the very large quantity of wine which our Lord must have created when the miracle we are considering was wrought. It might suffice to reply that there is much uncertainty about the precise quantity of liquid which the ancient measure, which we here render "firkins,'' contained. But the best and safest answer is, that we must not measure the demands of a Jewish marriage feast, which perhaps lasted several days, and included a large number of guests, by the feasts of our own times. v7.—[Jesus saith....fill the water-pots, &c.] The remark is frequently made by commentators on this verse, with much propriety, that these simple words describe the duty of all who work for Christ, and especially of ministers and teachers. They are to hear Christ's voice, and do as He tells them, and then leave the result to Him. Duties are ours. Events are God's. It is ours to fill the water-pots. It is Christ's to make the water wine. [Up to the brim.] This circumstance is no doubt mentioned in order to show that there was no room left for trick, jugglery, or imposture. What was put into the water-pots was water, and only water, and they were so filled that nothing could be infused, or mingled with their contents. v8.—[And he saith...draw out now.] It was at this moment, no doubt, that the miracle took place. By an act of will our Lord changed the contents of the water-pots. That which was poured in was water. That which was drawn out was wine. To Him who created the vine and made it bear grapes at the first, the change was perfectly easy. He who could create matter out of nothing, could much more easily change one kind of matter into another. [The governor of the feast.] This person appears to have been one who presided at large entertainments like that before us, and superintended all the proceedings. The Greek word so rendered, is precisely the same as that translated "ruler of the feast," in the following verse. The presence of such a person at feasts was a well-known custom among the Greeks and Romans. v9.—[Tasted...wine...knew not whence it was.] The testimony of the ruler of the feast is specially adduced, in order to show the reality of the miracle. He knew nothing of what had been done to the water-pots. He had not seen the water poured in by our Lord's command. There was no collusion or conspiracy between him and the servants, much less between him and our Lord. Hence the value of his testimony. He not only testifies that the liquid which a few minutes before was water was now wine, but that it was also wine of more than common goodness and strength,— not wine mixed with water, but pure, good wine. Let the word "tasted" be carefully noticed in this place. It supplies a strong incidental argument against the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation. The occasion before us is the only known occasion on which our Lord changed one liquid into another. When He did so change it, the reality of the change was at once proved by the "taste." Why is it then that in the pretended change of the sacramental wine in the Lord's Supper into Christ's blood the change cannot be detected by the senses? Why does the wine after consecration taste like wine, just as it did before?— These are questions which the Roman Catholics cannot satisfactorily answer. The pretended change of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper is a complete delusion. It is contradicted by the senses of every communicant. The bread after consecration is still bread, and the wine is still wine. That which contradicts our senses we are nowhere required in God's Word to believe. v10.—[Every man at the beginning, &c.] The words in this sentence must not be pressed too closely, in order to bring out of them a spiritual meaning. The ruler of the feast makes a general remark about the way in which banquets were usually managed. The ordinary custom was to bring the best wine first, and the inferior wine last. But the wine before him, drawn from the water-pots, was so singularly good, that the custom of this day seemed reversed. The verse is a strong incidental testimony to the reality and greatness of our Lord's miracle. Not only did He change water into wine, but into wine so singularly good as to excite remark and attention. [When men have well drunk.] Foolish remarks have sometimes been made on this expression, as if our Lord had countenanced excessive drinking on this occasion. For one thing, it may be remarked that the Greek word rendered "have well drunk," does not necessarily imply intoxication. It may be justly interpreted, as Schleusner and Parkhurst observe, "have drunk sufficiently, or drunk freely."— Men who have had enough, are indifferent as to the quality of the wine set before them. For another thing, we must remember that the ruler of the feast was only making a general remark about men's ordinary customs in supplying wine to their guests. There is nothing whatever to show that he was alluding to the guests actually before him. [Thou hast kept the good wine until now.] A good practical remark has often been raised from these words of the ruler of the feast. The world gives its best things, like the best wine, first, and its worst things last. The longer we serve the world, the more disappointing, unsatisfactory, and unsavoury will its gifts prove. Christ, on the other hand, gives His servants their best things last. They have first the cross, the race, and the battle, and then the rest, the glory, and the crown. Specially will it be found true at his second advent. Then will believers say emphatically, "Thou hast kept the good wine until now." These are pious and useful thoughts. But it may be doubted whether they are more than accommodations. This is perhaps the proper place to remark, that it seems utterly impossible, on any fair and honest interpretation, to reconcile the passage before us with the leading principles of what is commonly called "Teetotalism." If our Lord Jesus Christ actually worked a miracle in order to supply wine at a marriage feast, it seems to me impossible, by any ingenuity, to prove that drinking wine is sinful. Temperance in all things is one of the fruits of the Spirit. An intemperate man is an unconverted man. Total abstinence from fermented liquors is in many cases most useful and desirable. But to say, as many do say, that to drink any fermented liquor at all is "a sin," is taking up ground that cannot be maintained in the face of the passage before us, without wresting the plain meaning of Scripture, and charging Christ with abetting sin. v11.—[This beginning of miracles, &c.] The plain meaning of this sentence seems to be that this was the first miracle which our Lord Jesus Christ ever worked. The miracles which some have reported that He worked in His infancy and childhood, are destitute of the slightest foundation in Scripture, and utterly unworthy of credit. Those who wish to see their absurdity will find specimens of them in the preliminary Essay to Trench's Notes on Miracles. Lightfoot suggests the five following reasons why the miracle now before us was purposely the first that Christ worked. 1. As marriage was the first institution ordained by God, so at a marriage was Christ's first miracle. 2. As Christ had showed Himself miraculous a little while ago by a fast, so He doth now by an extraordinary provision at a feast. When He would not make stones bread, it was not because He could not. 3. He would not make stones into bread to satisfy Satan, but He was willing to turn water into wine to show forth His own glory. 4. The first miracle wrought in the world by man was transformation, (Exodus 7:9,) and the first miracle wrought by the Son of Man was of the same nature. 5. The first time you hear of John the Baptist, you hear of his strict diet, and so the first time you hear of Christ in His public ministry, you hear of Him at a marriage feast. [Manifested forth his glory.] I am unable to see that these words refer to the expression used in the first chapter, "We beheld his glory." (John 1:14.) I believe the meaning to be that "by this miracle Jesus now for the first time opened or revealed His glorious and divine power, and His commission to be the Messiah." After thirty years' seclusion at Nazareth, He now for the first time lifted up the veil which He had thrown over His divinity in becoming flesh, and revealed something of His almighty power and Godhead. [His disciples believed on him.] These words cannot of course mean that Andrew, and John, and Peter, and Philip, and Nathanael now believed on Jesus for the first time. The probable meaning is, that from this time forth they believed more confidently, more implicitly, and more unhesitatingly. From this time they felt thoroughly convinced, in spite of much remaining ignorance, that He whom they were following was the Messiah. I cannot close the note on this wonderful miracle without saying something about the allegorical and typical meanings assigned to it by the fathers and many other commentators. Many see in the miracle an allegorical history of the introduction of the Gospel into the world. Like the marriage feast, the Gospel was an occasion of joy. As at the marriage feast, the personal presence of Jesus was the great feature of the Gospel. The times of the Jewish dispensation were times of deficiency and dim light. The coming of Christ supplied all that was lacking. Revealed religion before Christ was like water. Christ coming into the world turned the water of the old dispensation into wine. The good wine was reserved until the time of Christ. The first miracle wrought by Moses was turning water into blood. The first wrought by Christ was turning water into wine. These are undoubtedly pious thoughts, and full of truth. I should be sorry to speak harshly of them, or to pronounce decidedly that they may not be legitimately deduced from the miracle. I only venture the remark, that it is far wiser to abstain from allegorical interpretations as a general rule, and to be content with the plain meaning which appears on the surface of Scripture. Once begin allegorizing Scripture, and you never know where you are to stop. You may prove anything, and find anything in the Bible upon the allegorical system, and at last throw open the floodgate to a torrent of wild fanaticism. The allegorical lessons drawn from this miracle by Augustine, Bernard, and Alcuin, are striking examples of the extremes into which allegory may run. When such a man as Augustine, for instance, tells us that the two or three firkins mean the two races of men, Jews and Greeks, or the three sons of Noah,— or when he says that the six water-pots in the miracle before us denote six successive prophetical periods in the days between Adam and Christ, one cannot but feel that there is something wrong. These are his words, "The six water-pots, containing two or three firkins apiece, are six ages, containing the prophecy belonging to all nations, whether as referred to two kinds of men, Jews and Gentiles, as the apostle often says, or to three, on account of the three sons of Noah." The system of interpreting Scripture which can lead a good man into such assertions as this, must surely be a dangerous two-edged weapon, and likely to do more harm than good. That all our Lord's miracles were deeply significant, I do not deny. That all were intended to convey deep spiritual lessons, beside supplying proofs of His divinity, I make no question. All I maintain is that they require reverent and delicate handling, and that to rush hastily into allegorical interpretations of them, and invest every minute portion of them with a figurative meaning, is an unwise mode of handling Scripture, and eminently calculated to bring the Bible into contempt. Hardly any commentator has drawn more useful practical lessons from this miracle than Melancthon. Those who think lightly of Protestant divinity would do well to compare his commentary on the whole passage with that of Augustine. THE second miracle which our Lord is recorded to have wrought demands our attention in these verses. Like the first miracle at Cana, it is eminently typical and significant of things yet to come. To attend a marriage feast, and cleanse the temple from profanation were among the first acts of our Lord's ministry at His first coming. To purify the whole visible Church, and hold a marriage supper, will be amongst His first acts, when He comes again. We see, for one thing, in this passage, how much Christ disapproves all irreverent behavior in the house of God. We are told that He drove out of the temple those whom He found selling oxen and sheep and doves within its walls,— that He poured out the changers' money and overthrew their tables,— and that He said to them that sold doves, "Take these things hence, make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." On no occasion in our Lord's earthly ministry do we find Him acting so energetically, and exhibiting such righteous indignation, as on the occasion now before us. Nothing seems to have called from Him such a marked display of holy wrath as the gross irreverence which the priests permitted in the temple, notwithstanding all their boasted zeal for God's law. Twice, it will be remembered, He discovered the same profanation of His Father's house going on, within three years, once at the beginning of His ministry and once at the end. Twice we see Him expressing his displeasure in the strongest terms. "The thing is doubled" in order to impress a lesson more strongly on our minds. The passage is one that ought to raise deep searchings of heart in many quarters. Are there none who profess and call themselves Christians, behaving every Sunday just as badly as these Jews? Are there none who secretly bring into the house of God their money, their lands, their houses, their cattle, and a whole train of worldly affairs? Are there none who bring their bodies only into the place of worship, and allow their hearts to wander into the ends of the earth? Are there none who are "almost in all evil, in the midst of the congregation"? (Proverbs 5:14.) These are serious questions! Multitudes, it may be feared, could not give them a satisfactory answer. Christian churches and chapels, no doubt, are very unlike the Jewish temple. They are not built after a divine pattern. They have no altars or holy places. Their furniture has no typical meaning. But they are places where God's word is read, and where Christ is specially present. The man who professes to worship in them should surely behave with reverence and respect. The man who brings his worldly matters with him when he professes to worship, is doing that which is evidently most offensive to Christ. The words which Solomon wrote by the Holy Ghost are applicable to all times, "Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God." (Ecclesiastes 5:1.) We see, for another thing, in this passage, how men may remember words of religious truth long after they are spoken, and may one day see a meaning in them which at first they did not see. We are told that our Lord said to the Jews, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." John informs us distinctly that "He spake of the temple of His body," that he referred to His own resurrection. Yet the meaning of the sentence was not understood by our Lord's disciples at the time that it was spoken. It was not till "He was risen from the dead," three years after the events here described, that the full significance of the sentence flashed on their hearts. For three years it was a dark and useless saying to them. For three years it lay sleeping in their minds, like a seed in a tomb, and bore no fruit. But at the end of that time the darkness passed away. They saw the application of their Master's words, and as they saw it were confirmed in their faith. "They remembered that He had said this," and as they remembered "they believed." It is a comfortable and cheering thought, that the same kind of thing that happened to the disciples is often going on at the present day. The sermons that are preached to apparently heedless ears in churches, are not all lost and thrown away. The instruction that is given in schools and pastoral visits, is not all wasted and forgotten. The texts that are taught by parents to children are not all taught in vain. There is often a resurrection of sermons, and texts, and instruction, after an interval of many years. The good seed sometimes springs up after he that sowed it has been long dead and gone. Let preachers go on preaching, and teachers go on teaching, and parents go on training up children in the way they should go. Let them sow the good seed of Bible truth in faith and patience. Their labor is not in vain in the Lord. Their words are remembered far more than they think, and will yet spring up "after many days." (1 Corinthians 15:58; Ecclesiastes 11:1.) We see, lastly, in this passage, how perfect is our Lord Jesus Christ's knowledge of the human heart. We are told that when our Lord was at Jerusalem, the first time, He "did not commit Himself" to those who professed belief in Him. He knew that they were not to be depended on. They were astonished at the miracles which they saw Him work. They were even intellectually convinced that He was the Messiah, whom they had long expected. But they were not "disciples indeed." (John 8:31.) They were not converted, and true believers. Their hearts were not right in the sight of God, though their feelings were excited. Their inward man was not renewed, whatever they might profess with their lips. Our Lord knew that nearly all of them were stony-ground hearers. (Luke 8:13.) As soon as tribulation or persecution arose because of the word, their so-called faith would probably wither away and come to an end. All this our Lord saw clearly, if others around Him did not. Andrew, and Peter, and John, and Philip, and Nathanael, perhaps wondered that their Master did not receive these seeming believers with open arms. But they could only judge things by the outward appearance. Their Master could read hearts. "He knew what was in man." The truth now before us, is one which ought to make hypocrites and false professors tremble. They may deceive men, but they cannot deceive Christ. They may wear a cloak of religion, and appear, like whited sepulchers, beautiful in the eyes of men. But the eyes of Christ see their inward rottenness, and the judgment of Christ will surely overtake them, except they repent. Christ is already reading their hearts, and as He reads He is displeased. They are known in heaven, if they are not known on earth, and they will be known at length to their shame, before assembled worlds, if they die unchanged. It is written, "I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." (Revelation 3:1.) But the truth before us has two sides, like the pillar of cloud and fire at the Red sea. (Exodus 14:20.) If it looks darkly on hypocrites, it looks brightly on true believers. If it threatens wrath to false professors, it speaks peace to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. A real Christian may be weak, but he is true. One thing, at any rate, the servant of Christ can say, when cast down by a sense of his own infirmity, or pained by the slander of a lying world. He can say, "Lord, I am a poor sinner, but I am in earnest, I am true. Thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. Thou knowest all hearts, and thou knowest that, weak as my heart is, it is a heart that cleaves to thee." The false Christian shrinks from the eye of an all-seeing Savior. The true Christian desires his Lord's eye to be on him morning, noon, and night. He has nothing to hide. ================== Notes— v12.—[He went down to Capernaum.] The strict accuracy of John's writing is note-worthy here. Cana was a village in the hill country. Capernaum was a town on the shore of the lake of Galilee, at a very much lower level than Cana. It is therefore said that Jesus "went down." Capernaum appears to have been our Lord's principal residence in Galilee during his earthly ministry. "Leaving Nazareth, he dwelt in Capernaum." (Matthew 4:13.) At no place does He seem to have worked so many miracles; and on no place does He denounce so severe a judgment for its impenitence and neglect of privileges: "Thou Capernaum which art exalted to heaven shalt be cast down to hell." (Matthew 11:23.) It is a striking fact that though Capernaum was a wealthy and important place in our Lord's time, it has so entirely passed away and been "cast down," that even its situation has never been clearly ascertained. [His mother.] Here again we see no mention of Joseph. Whether Mary was a constant companion of our Lord throughout His earthly ministry, may be doubted. We see her here. We see her again at the crucifixion. But we see her in another place "standing without and desiring to speak with him" when He was talking to the people, and giving occasion to the solemn saying, "Who is my mother?" (Matthew 12:48.) Indeed there is no proof that Mary ever saw more clearly than the rest of our Lord's disciples the whole purpose of Christ's advent, or was at all more prepared than the rest for His crucifixion and sufferings. [His Brethren.] There is no good ground for supposing that these were our Lord's brethren according to the flesh, and that Mary ever had any other son after our Lord's miraculous birth.— For one thing, it is well known to every careful reader, that the word "brethren" is applied in the Bible to many relatives besides those whom we call "brethren." Abraham says to Lot, "We be brethren," (Genesis 13:8,) though Lot was his nephew. Mishael and Elzaphan were called the "brethren" of Nadab and Abihu, though they were only cousins. (Leviticus 10:4.)— Jacob said "to his brethren" gather stones (Genesis 31:46); yet they were his sons and servants.— For another thing, it is quite possible that Joseph might have had children by a former marriage, before he was espoused to Mary; and these children, we can well understand, would be called our Lord's "brethren."— In the last place, we know that the Apostle James was called our "Lord's brother," (Galatians 1:19,) and yet we are distinctly told that he was the son of Alpheus or Cleophas, the husband of the virgin Mary's sister. It is therefore most probable that "brethren" in the verse before us means "cousins," some of whom believed on our Lord, though others did not. (John 7:5.) It is an interesting fact, that two at least of our Lord's apostles were His kinsmen according to the flesh, viz., James and Jude, the sons of Alpheus. To them we may probably add Simon, on the strength of Mar 6:3, and perhaps Matthew also, on the strength of Mar 2:14 and Matthew 9:9. [And his disciples.] This expression, being used after the words "His brethren," may raise a doubt whether any of our Lord's relatives as yet believed on Him, except Mary. It is possible that they only followed Him now out of curiosity, in consequence of the miracle he had just wrought. v13.—[The Jews' passover...at hand.] This expression is another proof that John wrote his Gospel for Gentile believers rather than for Jews. Our Lord's regular attendance on the feasts and ordinances of the law of Moses, deserves notice. So long as the dispensation of the Old Testament lasted, He gave it all due honour, however unworthy the hands which administered it. The unworthiness of ministers will not justify us in neglecting God's ordinances. The exact number of Passovers which our Lord kept, and consequently the exact length of His ministry from His baptism to His crucifixion, are points on which there is much difference of opinion. For myself I can see no better view than the old one, that our Lord's ministry lasted three years. It evidently began shortly before a Passover, and ended with a Passover. But whether it included only three Passovers, and in that case lasted between two and three years,— or four Passovers, and in that case lasted between three and four years,— I think we have no materials for deciding positively. If I must venture an opinion, I think it most likely that our Lord only kept three Passovers.— But it is an open question, and one happily not of deep moment.— Three Passovers are distinctly named by John, viz., the one before us, the one in the sixth chapter, (John 6:3-4,) and the one at which our Lord was crucified. If the "feast" mentioned in the fifth chapter (John 5:1,) was the Passover, our Lord kept four Passovers. But this last point cannot be settled. Sir Isaac Newton thought that our Lord kept no less than five Passovers. Some few writers have maintained that He kept only two. Those who wish to see the subject discussed will find it in Doddridge's notes on this place. [Jesus went up to Jerusalem.] Let it be noted, that this journey, and all the circumstances which attended this visit to Jerusalem, are only related by John. For some wise reason the other three Gospel writers were inspired to leave out this part of our Lord's history. v14.—[Found in the temple those that sold, &c.] The presence of oxen, sheep, doves, and money-changers, within the temple courts, is easily accounted for. The animals were intended to supply the wants of Jews who came to the Passover and other feasts, from distant places, and required sacrifices. For them the dealers in oxen, sheep, and doves, were ready, within a few yards of the altar. The changers of money came naturally enough where buying and selling went on, to meet the convenience of Jews who had nothing but foreign money, which they wished to exchange for the current coin of Jerusalem. The tendency of the whole custom was evidently most profane. It was no doubt connived at by the priests from covetous motives. They were either connected with those who sold animals and changed money, and shared in their profits; or else they received a rent for the privilege of carrying on business within the sacred walls. No doubt they would have pleaded that all was done with a good intention! Their end was to provide facilities for worshipping God! But good intentions cannot sanctify unscriptural actions. As Dyke says on the passage, "No pretence of good ends can justify that which is forbidden by God." When we are told that our Lord found all this going on "in the temple," we must of course understand that it means "in the courtyards surrounding the temple,— within the precincts of the temple." But these courtyards, we must remember, were regarded as part of the temple, and therefore holy ground. I am inclined to see in this visit of our Lord to the temple at His first appearance in Jerusalem after beginning His ministry, a partial though very imperfect fulfilment of Malachi's prophecy: "The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple." (Malachi 3:1.) While the Jewish nation was expecting the appearance of a conquering Messiah with power and great glory, the true Messiah suddenly appeared in the temple, and declared His presence, not by exhibiting temporal power, but by insisting on greater purity in the temple worship, as the first thing which the nation needed. That a fuller and more complete accomplishment of Malachi's words remains yet to come, I feel no doubt. But like many Old Testament prophecies about Messiah, the words were purposely intended to have a double fulfilment,— a partial one at Messiah's first coming to suffer, a complete one at Messiah's second coming to reign. The great majority of the best commentators hold that our Lord cast out the buyers and sellers from the temple twice, once at the beginning of His ministry and once at the end.— It is fair to say that Bishop Pearce and a few other writers think that it only happened once,— at the end of His ministry, just before His crucifixion. But the arguments in favor of this view do not appear to me at all weighty or satisfactory. v15.—[Made a scourge of small cords.] The Greek word translated "small cords," means literally a "cord made of rushes." Some have thought that these rushes were used as litter for the sheep and oxen. Others have thought that such small cords as these might very likely have been lying about, after having been used for tying up the oxen. Whether the scourge was applied to those persons who brought the animals into the temple, as a sort of chastisement, as some old painters have represented the scene, we do not know. The more probable view seems to be, that the scourge was simply meant to assist our Lord in speedily ejecting the sheep and oxen. The whole transaction is a remarkable one, as exhibiting our Lord using more physical exertion, and energetic bodily action, than we see Him using at any other period of His ministry. A word, a touch, or the reaching forth of a hand, are the ordinary limits of His actions. Here we see Him doing no less than four things: (1) Making the scourge;— (2) Driving out the animals;— (3) Pouring out on the ground the changers' money; (4) Overthrowing the tables. On no occasion do we find Him showing such strong outward marks of indignation, as at the sight of the profanation of the temple. Remembering that the whole transaction is a striking type of what Christ will do to His visible church at His second coming, we may get some idea of the deep meaning of that remarkable expression, "The wrath of the Lamb." (Revelation 6:16.) A remark of Dyke on our Lord's conduct in this place, is worth noticing. "This act of Christ is not to be drawn into imitation, because He did it as Lord of the temple by virtue of His Sonship. Therefore the Papists grossly abuse this place that hence gather the power of the Pope to punish offenders even with corporal punishments, or to deprive princes of their kingdoms. As for ministers, the only whip they may use is their tongue, in powerful preaching against abuses.— As for private persons, God hath not tied their tongues, though He hath their hands. As occasion is offered, they may show their detestation and dislike of corruption." v16.—[Said....sold doves....take these things hence.] The distinction between our Lord's mode of dealing with each of the objects of His displeasure deserves notice. The oxen and sheep He drove out. There was no danger of their being lost by such treatment.— The money He threw on the ground. It might be soon picked up and carried away.— The doves He simply ordered to be taken away. Had He done more, they might have flown away, and been completely lost to their owners.— It would have been well for the church, if all church reformers had blended like wisdom with a like zeal in their proceedings. In the present instance all were rebuked and all instructed. But no one was really injured, and nothing was lost. [My Father's house.] This expression is note-worthy. Whether the Jews observed it, in the hurry and confusion of the whole transaction, may be questioned. It was evidently an assertion by our Lord of His divine Sonship, and consequently of his right to vindicate the purity of His Father's place of worship. On another occasion when our Lord called God His Father, the Jews at once said that He "made himself equal with God." (John 5:18.) Some have thought that the expression is parallel to that used in the description of Christ among the doctors, (Luke 2:49,) and that the words used there, "I must be about my Father's business," would have been better rendered, "I must be in my Father's house." The fact that the profane custom which our Lord here reproved was resumed by the Jews, and that two or three years afterward our Lord found the same thing going on again in the temple, and again cast out the buyers and sellers, ought not to be overlooked. It is a striking proof of the desperate wickedness and fallen condition of the priests and rulers of the temple. They were deaf to all counsel and reproof, and given over to a reprobate mind.— The difference between our Lord's language at the second visit and that used at the first, ought also to be noticed. At the first visit He only says, "Make not my Father's house a house of merchandise," a place of buying and selling. At the second visit He says, "Ye have made it a den of thieves." (Matthew 21:13.) The more wicked and hardened men are, the louder must be our protest, and the sharper our rebuke. [A house of merchandise.] Musculus remarks on this expression, that if the sale of animals for sacrifices called forth Christ's displeasure, much more must He be displeased at what goes on continually in Roman Catholic Churches. The sale of masses, indulgences, &c., must be far more offensive to Christ than the sale of oxen and sheep. The complete success of our Lord on this occasion, and the absence of the slightest opposition on the part of the Jews, deserve notice. It is a fact that induced some of the Fathers to call this the greatest miracle Christ ever worked. There are however three things to be remembered in considering this matter. For one thing, the conscience of the Jews was on our Lord's side. They knew that He was right and they were wrong. For another thing, as a nation familiar with the history of the Old "Testament Prophets, they would not be surprised at an individual apparently under a divine impulse suddenly doing what our Lord did.— Above all there can be little doubt that a divine influence was brought to bear on all present, as it was when our Lord rode into Jerusalem on an ass, and when He caused His enemies in the garden to "go backward and fall to the ground." (Matthew 21:9-10; John 18:6.) Here, as on other occasions, our Lord showed His disciples that He had complete power over all wills and minds, when He thought fit to exercise it; and that when He was rejected and disobeyed by the Jews, it was not because He had no power to compel obedience. They had no power against Him except when He permitted. The allegorical meanings assigned to the sheep, oxen, and doves, by Augustine, Origen, and Bede, are too absurd to be quoted. They may be seen in the Catena of Aquinas. Origen sees in the casting out of the animals, a type of the dissolution of the Jewish dispensation with its offerings and sacrifices. Beza sees a peculiar fitness in our Lord's action of purifying the temple. It became Him who was to be our Prophet, Priest, and King, to exhibit the same zeal for the purity of God's house that was formerly exhibited by such men as the Prophet Isaiah, the priest Jehoiada, and the kings Hezekiah and Josiah. (2 Chronicles 24:6.) v17.—[His disciples remembered, &c.] These words certainly appear to mean that our Lord's disciples "remembered" the text which is here quoted, at the very time when our Lord was casting out the buyers and sellers. It occurred to their minds as a striking illustration of the spirit which their divine Master was exhibiting. He was completely absorbed for the moment in zeal for the purity of God's house. It is one among many proofs of the familiarity of the poor and unlearned Jews with the Old Testament Scriptures. Whether, however, the disciples regarded the Psalm, of which they remembered this verse, as applicable to the Messiah, may be reasonably doubted. [The zeal of thine house....eaten me.] The 69th Psalm, from which this text is taken, is quoted no less than seven times in the New Testament, as the utterance of Messiah. In the first twenty-one verses of the Psalm the Messiah's sufferings are related by Himself. The fifth verse is undoubtedly very remarkable as coming from Messiah's lips, when He speaks of "my foolishness" and "my sins." Ainsworth says it means, "false-imputation of sins." "Thou knowest if there be any such as my foes charge me with." Bonar says much the same. The text before us shows that it is sometimes justifiable to be entirely absorbed and eaten up, so to speak, by zeal for some object in which God's glory is concerned. Moses, Phineas, and Paul at Athens, are examples of such zeal. (Exodus 32:19; Numbers 25:11; Acts 17:16.) Augustine remarks on this text, "Let the zeal of the house of God ever eat thee.— For example: Seest thou a brother running to the theatre? stop him, warn him, be grieved for him, if the zeal of God's house hath now eaten thee.— Seest thou others running and wanting to drink themselves drunk? Stop whom thou canst, hold whom thou canst, frighten whom thou canst; whom thou canst, win in gentleness; do not in any wise sit still and do nothing." v18.—[Then answered the Jews and said.] Doddridge remarks here that these Jews were probably the rulers, because the Great Assembly, or Sanhedrim, sat in the temple, and our Lord's actions would undoubtedly come to their knowledge without delay. This makes the question and answer which follow the more important. [What sign showest thou....doest these things.] This question of the Jews shows us that they admitted the lawfulness of a man doing such things as our Lord had done, if he could prove that he had a divine commission. He had suddenly taken upon Himself a great and independent authority. Though neither a priest nor a Levite, He had virtually interfered with the management of the temple courts. Let Him now show that He was a prophet, like Elijah or Amos, and they would concede He had a warrant for His conduct. v19.—[Jesus answered....destroy this temple.] The meaning of this remarkable expression is either hypothetical or prophetical. It must either be rendered, "Supposing you destroy this temple," or "Ye will destroy this temple,"— "If ye kill my body," or "When ye shall kill my body."— It is of course absurd to suppose that our Lord literally commanded the Jews to destroy Him. The use of the imperative instead of the future, must surely be familiar to every Bible reader. See especially the 109th Psalm. In the present case it is truly astonishing that any one can see difficulty in our Lord's expression. He only used a mode of speaking which is in common use among ourselves. If a lawyer said to his client in a consultation, "Take such a step, and you will be ruined," we all know that he would not be commanding his client to take the step. He would only mean, "If you do take such a step."— A similar form of language may be seen in our Lord's words, "Fill ye up the measure of your fathers," addressed to the Pharisees. (Matthew 23:32.) No one would say that our Lord commanded the Pharisees to do this. It is a prophecy.— So also, "Make the tree good," (Matthew 12:33,) is not so much a command as an hypothesis. See also Isaiah 8:9-10. [In three days I will raise it up.] This is a prophecy of our Lord's resurrection. But it is a very remarkable one, from the fact that our Lord distinctly asserts His own power to raise Himself up. It is like the expression, "I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again." (John 10:18.) Both the expressions deserve particular notice, because many now-a-days assert that our Lord's resurrection was owing to the operation of God the Father and of God the Holy Ghost, and that He did not rise by His own power. This is a dangerous heresy. That the Father and the Holy Ghost co-operated in the resurrection of our Lord's body there can be no doubt. It is clearly taught in many places. But to say that our Lord did not raise his own body, is to contradict the text before us, and the other which has been already quoted. Hurrion, quoted by Ford, observes, "The efficient cause of Christ's resurrection was the infinite power of God, which being common to all the Persons in the blessed Trinity, the resurrection is sometimes ascribed to the Father, sometimes to the Son, and sometimes to the Holy Ghost. Christ's being raised by the Father and the Spirit is not inconsistent with His raising Himself; for 'what things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son,' (John 5:19,) for being one in nature, they are also one in operation." The questions naturally arise in many minds, Why did Jesus not work some miracle at once, as a sign, to convince the Jews? Why did He not at once proclaim Himself the Messiah? Why did he give the Jews so dark and mysterious a reply as the one before us?— The answer to these questions is this. For one thing we must remark, it was a leading principle in our Lord's dealings with men, not to force conviction on them, but to speak to them according to what He saw was the state of their hearts. He answered fools according to their folly. (Proverbs 26:5.) If He had given the Jews a more direct reply, He knew that it would have brought His ministry to an abrupt end, and would have led to His being cut off before the time.— For another thing, we must remember, that however dark our Lord's saying seemed when it was spoken, it did in effect tell the Jews of the greatest and most important sign which could be given them as a proof of His Messiahship. It told them of His future resurrection. It was equivalent to saying, "You ask me for a sign, and I will give you one. I will rise again from the dead the third day after my crucifixion. If I do not so rise from the dead, you need not believe that I am the Messiah. But if I do so rise, you will be without excuse if you do not believe on me." In effect our Lord staked the truth of His mission on His resurrection. He did the same when He said that He would give the Jewish nation no sign but that of the prophet Jonas. (Matthew 12:39.) When the apostles began to preach, they continually referred the Jews to Christ's resurrection as the proof of His Messiahship. And why did they do so? One main reason was, because their Master had told the Jews, the first time He appeared in the temple, that the great sign they must look to was His own rising again from the dead. v20.—[Then said....Jews, forty and six years, &c.] This expression has given rise to some difference of opinion. The temple to which the Jews refer, cannot of course be the temple built by Solomon. That temple was completely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.— Nor yet does it seem likely to have been the temple built by Zerubbabel and his companions, after the return from Babylon. There is no sufficiently clear proof that this temple was forty and six years building.— By far the most probable view is, that the temple spoken of is the one repaired, or rather re-built by Herod, and that the forty-six years here mentioned mean the time during which these repairs were going on, and that the entire completion of them had not been effected up to our Lord's time. These repairs, according to Josephus, had been going on exactly forty-six years when our Lord visited the temple. They were so extensive and costly, that eighteen thousand workmen were employed about them, and they amounted to a re-building. Moreover, the minds of the Jews would probably be full of them at this particular time, because they were of recent date, if not going on at that very time. The Greek words might fairly be rendered, "Forty and six years has this temple been building."— They denote a time, as Whitby remarks, not perfectly past. If any one desires to see an instance of the extravagant lengths into which a good man may be led, in following the allegorical system of interpreting Scripture, he will do well to read Augustine's allegorical explanation of the forty and six years. It is far too absurd to be worth inserting here. [Wilt thou rear it up in three days?] This question implies three things,— a sneer, astonishment, and incredulity. There is probably an emphasis meant to be laid on the word "thou." Such an one as thou! Wilt thou do it? That this saying of our Lord, nevertheless, was not thrown away and forgotten, but stuck in the minds of the Jews, though they did not understand it, is strikingly proved by two facts.— One is, that the false witnesses brought it forward, though in a garbled form, when our Lord was arraigned before the high priests.— The other is, that the Jews taunted Him with it when He hung on the cross. (Matthew 26:61; Matthew 27:40.) v21.—[But he spake....temple....body.] This verse is an instance of John's habit of making explanatory comments in his Gospel as he goes on, in order to make things clear to his Gentile readers. Let it be noted, that as our Lord calls His own body a "temple," so also the bodies of His believing people are called "the temple of the Holy Ghost." (1 Corinthians 6:19.) If it was wrong to defile and profane the temple made of stone and wood, how much more is it wrong to defile by sin the temple of our bodies! Paul and Peter both call our bodies our "tabernacle." (2 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Peter 1:13.) v22.—[When...risen....dead....disciples remembered.] This sentence is an interesting proof of two things. For one thing, it shows how much light was brought to the minds of the disciples by our Lord's resurrection, and how many hard sayings of His were at once unravelled and made plain.— For another thing, it shows how long truth may lie dormant in men's minds without being understood, or doing them any service. It is one of the special offices of the Holy Ghost to bring things to remembrance. (John 14:26.) We must not suppose religious teaching does no good, because it is not understood immediately. It may do good long after the teacher is dead. [They believed the Scripture.] What Scripture does this mean? It cannot, of course, be our Lord's saying. What our Lord said is specially added, as something beside the Scripture, which the disciples "believed."— Nor yet does it seem likely that it means any particular text in the Old Testament about the resurrection. I incline to the opinion, that it means generally the whole testimony of Scripture to our Lord's claim to be received as the Messiah. When Jesus rose from the dead, the disciples were fully convinced that the Scripture about the Messiah was fulfilled in their Master. The expression "believed" cannot mean that the disciples then believed for the first time. As in other places, it signifies that they believed fully, and without any more doubt and hesitation. The same may be said of Joh 14:1. v23.—[Many believed.] These persons do not appear to have really believed with the heart, but to have been only convinced in their understandings. The distinction between intellectual belief and saving belief, and between one degree of saving belief and another, ought to be carefully noticed in Scripture. There is a faith which devils have, and a faith which is the gift of God. The persons mentioned in this verse had the former, but not the latter. So also we are told that Simon Magus "believed." (Acts 8:13.) Again, there is a real heart-belief which a man may have that admits of great increase. This is the belief spoken of in the preceding verse. [When they saw the miracles.] This expression shows us that there were many miracles worked by our Lord which are nowhere recorded in Scripture. John himself tells us so twice over. (John 20:30; John 21:25.) Nicodemus refers to these miracles in the beginning of the following chapter. (John 3:2.) If it had been good for us to know anything about these miracles, they would no doubt have been recorded. But it is well to remember that there were such miracles, in order that we may rightly understand the unbelief and hardness of the Jews a Jerusalem. The miracles which are related as having been worked in or near Jerusalem, we must remember, are by no means all that our Lord worked there. v24.—[Did not commit himself.] The Greek word so rendered means literally "Did not trust himself." It is the same verb that is generally rendered "believe." [He knew all men.] This is a direct assertion of our Lord's divine omniscience. As God He knew all mankind, and these seeming believers among others. As God, He knew that their hearts were like the stony ground in the parable, and their faith only temporary. Melancthon makes some very wise remarks on this verse, as to the example which our Lord sets us here of caution in dealing with strangers. It is a melancholy fact, which the experience of years always confirms, that we must not trust implicitly to appearances of kindness, or be ready to open our hearts to every one as a friend, upon short acquaintance. The man who does not hastily contract intimacies, may be thought cold and distant by some; but in the long run of life he will escape many sorrows. It is a wise saying, that a man ought to be friendly with all, but intimate with few. v25.—[Needed not...testify of man.] These words mean that our Lord had no need of any one's testimony "about man." He required no information from others about the real character of those who professed faith in Him. [He knew what was in man.] This means that our Lord, as God, possessed a perfect knowledge of man's inner nature, and was a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. We should remember Solomon's words in his prayer, "Thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men." (1 Kings 8:39.) The immense difference between our Lord and all ministers of His Gospel appears strikingly in this verse. Ministers are constantly deceived in their estimate of people. Christ never was, and never could be. When He allowed Judas Iscariot to be a disciple, He was perfectly acquainted with his character. Wordsworth observes that the two last verses of this chapter "afford an instance of the peculiar manner in which the Holy Spirit, in John's Gospel, pronounces judgment on things and persons. Compare John 6:64, John 6:71; John 7:39; John 8:27; John 12:33, John 12:37; John 13:11; John 21:17." In leaving the whole passage, I cannot help remarking what a faithful picture of human nature it exhibits, and how many are the ways in which human corruption and infirmity show themselves. Within the space of a few verses we find some openly profaning God's temple for the sake of gain,— some angrily demanding a sign of Him who shows zeal for purity,— some professing a false faith,— and some few only believing, but even these believing with a weak, unintelligent faith. It is the state of things which exists everywhere and always. THE conversation between Christ and Nicodemus, which begins with these verses, is one of the most important passages in the whole Bible. Nowhere else do we find stronger statements about those two mighty subjects, the new birth, and salvation by faith in the Son of God. The servant of Christ will do well to make himself thoroughly acquainted with this chapter. A man may be ignorant of many things in religion, and yet be saved. But to be ignorant of the matters handled in this chapter, is to be in the broad way which leadeth to destruction. We should notice, firstly, in these verses, what a weak and feeble beginning a man may make in religion, and yet finally prove a strong Christian. We are told of a certain Pharisee, named Nicodemus, who feeling concerned about his soul, "came to Jesus by night." There can be little doubt that Nicodemus acted as he did on this occasion from the fear of man. He was afraid of what man would think, or say, or do, if his visit to Jesus was known. He came "by night," because he had not faith and courage enough to come by day. And yet there was a time afterwards when this very Nicodemus took our Lord's part in open day in the council of the Jews. "Doth our law judge any man," he said, "before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" (John 7:51.)— Nor was this all. There came a time when this very Nicodemus was one of the only two men who did honor to our Lord's dead body. He helped Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus, when even the apostles had forsaken their Master and fled. His last things were more than his first. Though he began ill, he ended well. The history of Nicodemus is meant to teach us that we should never "despise the day of small things" in religion. (Zechariah 4:10.) We must not set down a man as having no grace, because his first steps towards God are timid and wavering, and the first movements of his soul are uncertain, hesitating, and stamped with much imperfection. We must remember our Lord's reception of Nicodemus. He did not "break the bruised reed, or quench the smoking flax," which He saw before Him. (Matthew 12:20.) Like Him, let us take inquirers by the hand, and deal with them gently and lovingly. In everything there must be a beginning. It is not those who make the most flaming profession of religion at first, who endure the longest and prove the most steadfast. Judas Iscariot was an apostle when Nicodemus was just groping his way slowly into full light, Yet afterwards, when Nicodemus was boldly helping to bury his crucified Savior, Judas Iscariot had betrayed Him, and hanged himself! This is a fact which ought not to be forgotten. We should notice, secondly, in these verses, what a mighty change our Lord declares to be needful to salvation, and what a remarkable expression He uses in describing it. He speaks of a new birth. He says to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." He announces the same truth in other words, in order to make it more plain to his hearer's mind: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." By this expression He meant Nicodemus to understand that "no one could become His disciple, unless his inward man was as thoroughly cleansed and renewed by the Spirit, as the outward man is cleansed by water." To possess the privileges of Judaism a man only needed to be born of the seed of Abraham after the flesh. To possess the privileges of Christ's kingdom, a man must be born again of the Holy Ghost. The change which our Lord here declares needful to salvation is evidently no slight or superficial one. It is not merely reformation, or amendment, or moral change, or outward alteration of life. It is a thorough change of heart, will, and character. It is a resurrection. It is a new creation. It is a passing from death to life. It is the implanting in our dead hearts of a new principle from above. It is the calling into existence of a new creature, with a new nature, new habits of life, new tastes, new desires, new appetites, new judgments, new opinions, new hopes, and new fears. All this, and nothing less than this is implied, when our Lord declares that we all need a "new birth." This change of heart is rendered absolutely necessary to salvation by the corrupt condition in which we are all, without exception, born. "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh." Our nature is thoroughly fallen. The carnal mind is enmity against God. (Romans 8:7.) We come into the world without faith, or love, or fear toward God. We have no natural inclination to serve Him or obey Him, and no natural pleasure in doing His will. Left to himself, no child of Adam would ever turn to God. The truest description of the change which we all need in order to make us real Christians, is the expression, "new birth." This mighty change, it must never be forgotten, we cannot give to ourselves. The very name which our Lord gives to it is a convincing proof of this. He calls it "a birth." No man is the author of his own existence, and no man can quicken his own soul. We might as well expect a dead man to give himself life, as expect a natural man to make himself spiritual. A power from above must be put in exercise, even that same power which created the world. (2 Corinthians 4:6.) Man can do many things; but he cannot give life either to himself or to others. To give life is the peculiar prerogative of God. Well may our Lord declare that we need to be "born again"! This mighty change, we must, above all, remember, is a thing without which we cannot go to heaven, and could not enjoy heaven if we went there. Our Lord's words on this point are distinct and express. "Except a man be born again, he can neither see nor enter the kingdom of God." Heaven may be reached without money, or rank, or learning. But it is clear as daylight, if words have any meaning, that nobody can enter heaven without a "new birth." We should notice, lastly, in these verses, the instructive comparison which our Lord uses in explaining the new birth. He saw Nicodemus perplexed and astonished by the things he had just heard. He graciously helped his wondering mind by an illustration drawn from "the wind." A more beautiful and fitting illustration of the work of the Spirit it is impossible to conceive. There is much about the wind that is mysterious and inexplicable. "Thou canst not tell," says our Lord, "whence it cometh and whither it goeth." We cannot handle it with our hands, or see it with our eyes. When the wind blows, we cannot point out the exact spot where its breath first began to be felt, and the exact distance to which its influence shall extend. But we do not on that account deny its presence.— It is just the same with the operations of the Spirit, in the new birth of man. They may be mysterious, sovereign, and incomprehensible to us in many ways. But it is foolish to stumble at them because there is much about them that we cannot explain. But whatever mystery there may be about the wind, its presence may always be known by its sound and effects. "Thou hearest the sound thereof," says our Lord. When our ears hear it whistling in the windows, and our eyes see the clouds driving before it, we do not hesitate to say, "There is wind."— It is just the same with the operations of the Holy Spirit in the new birth of man. Marvelous and incomprehensible as His work may be, it is work that can always be seen and known. The new birth is a thing that "cannot be hid." There will always be visible "fruits of the Spirit" in every one that is born of the Spirit. Would we know what the marks of the new birth are?— We shall find them already written for our learning in the First Epistle of John. The man born of God "believes that Jesus is the Christ,"— "doth not commit sin,"— "doeth righteousness,"— "loves the brethren,"— "overcomes the world,"— "keepeth himself from the wicked one."— This is the man born of the Spirit! Where these fruits are to be seen, there is the new birth of which our Lord is speaking. He that lacks these marks, is yet dead in trespasses and sins. (1 John 5:1; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:14; 1 John 5:4; 1 John 5:18.) And now let us solemnly ask ourselves whether we know anything of the mighty change of which we have been reading? Have we been born again? Can any marks of the new birth be seen in us? Can the sound of the Spirit be heard in our daily conversation? Is the image and superscription of the Spirit to be discerned in our lives?— Happy is the man who can give satisfactory answers to these questions! A day will come when those who are not born again will wish that they had never been born at all. ================== Notes— v1.—[There was a man, &c.] The close connection of the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus with the end of the preceding chapter ought to be carefully noted. In fact the original Greek contains a connecting particle, which our translators have omitted to express in our version. The chapter should begin, "And there was a man," or "Now there was a man."— The conversation took place when our Lord "was in Jerusalem," at the time of the Passover. Nicodemus was one of those who "saw the miracles which Jesus did," and was so much struck by what he saw, that he sought out our Lord in order to converse with Him. [Of the Pharisees.] The striking variety of character in those who were brought to believe on Christ while He was on earth, ought not to be overlooked. His disciples were not drawn exclusively from any one class. As a general rule, none were more bitterly opposed to Him and His doctrines than the Pharisees. Yet here we see that nothing is impossible with grace. Even a Pharisee became an inquirer, and ultimately a disciple! Nicodemus and Paul are standing proofs that no heart is too hard to be converted. The third chapter shows us Jesus teaching a proud, moral Pharisee. The fourth will show him teaching an ignorant, immoral Samaritan woman. None are too bad to be taught by Christ. [A ruler of the Jews.] The civil government of the Jews at this time, we must remember, was in the hands of the Romans. When Nicodemus is called "a ruler," it means that he was a chief person among the Jews, probably in high ecclesiastical position, and certainly a famous religious teacher. See John 3:10. v2.—[The same came by night.] The fact here recorded appears to me to show that Nicodemus was influenced by the fear of man, and was afraid or ashamed to visit Jesus by day.— The view maintained by some, that we ought not to blame him for coming by night, because it was the quietest time for conversation, and the time when an interview was least liable to be interrupted, or because the Jewish teachers were in the habit of receiving inquirers by night, appears to me undeserving of attention. I am confirmed in this opinion by the fact, that on the only other occasions where Nicodemus is mentioned, he is specially described as the man who "came to Jesus by night." This repeated expression appears to me to imply blame. (John 7:50; John 19:39.) How any one can waste time, as some famous commentators do, in speculating how the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus was reported, is to my mind perfectly astonishing. To hint, as one has done, that Jesus must have told John about the conversation afterwards, or that John must have been present, appears to me to strike a blow at the very root of inspiration. Both here and elsewhere, frequently, John describes things which he only knew by the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost. [Rabbi.] This expression was a name of dignity among the Hebrews, signifying Doctor or Master. Cruden says that the name came originally from the Chaldees, and that it was not used before the time of captivity, except in describing the officers of the kings of Assyria and Babylon. Thus we find the names of Rab-saris and Rab-shakeh. (2 Kings 18:17.) The use of the word here by Nicodemus, was intended to mark his respect for our Lord. [We know.] Different reasons have been assigned for Nicodemus' use of the plural number in this place. Whom did he mean when he said "we"? Some say that he meant himself and many of his brethren among the Pharisees.— Some say that he meant himself and the secret believers of all classes mentioned at the end of the last chapter.— Some say, as Lightfoot, that he meant no one in particular, but used the plural for the singular, according to an idiom common in all languages. He only meant, "It is commonly known."— I venture the suggestion, that Nicodemus probably used the plural number intentionally, on account of its vagueness, and avoided the singular number from motives of caution, that he might not commit himself too much. Even at the present day people will talk of "we" in religion, long before they will talk of "I."— Weak faith strives to be hid in a crowd. [Thou art a teacher come from God.] This cautious sentence is an instructive indication of the state of Nicodemus' mind. He was naturally a timid, hesitating, slow-moving man. That Jesus was somebody remarkable, he was convinced by His miracles. That He might possibly be the Messiah, had probably crossed his mind, and the more so because he doubtless knew of the ministry of John the Baptist, and had heard that John spake of one greater than himself who was yet to come. But until he can make out more about Jesus, by private conversation, he declines to commit himself to any stronger statement than that before us. The Greek words would be more literally rendered, "From God thou hast come a teacher." Lightfoot thinks that Nicodemus here refers to the long cessation of prophecy, which had now lasted for four hundred years. During this long period no one had appeared from God to teach the once-favoured Jewish nation, as the prophets did of old. But now, he seems to say, "Thou hast appeared as the prophets did in former times, to teach us." [No man can do these miracles....with him.] This sentence has been justly called an illustration of one great purpose of our Lord's miracles. They arrested men's attention. They were evidences of a divine mission. They showed that He who wrought them was no ordinary Person, and ought to be listened to. I am aware that some have thought that Nicodemus attached too much weight to our Lord's miracles, and have boldly asserted that miracles are no necessary proof of a divine mission, seeing that Anti-christ will appear with signs and lying wonders. (2 Thessalonians 2:9; Revelation 13:14.) In reply it might be sufficient to remark that our Lord Himself declared that "His works bore witness that the Father had sent Him." (John 5:36; John 10:25; John 15:24.) But I also think that sufficient stress is not laid on the expression, "These miracles that thou doest." The character and quality of our Lord's miracles were such as to prove His divine commission. False teachers and Anti-christs may be permitted to work some miracles, like the magicians who withstood Moses. But there is a point beyond which Anti-christ and his servants cannot go. Such miracles as our Lord worked could only be wrought by the finger of God. I therefore think that Nicodemus' argument was just and correct.— It is moreover worthy of note, that the expression he uses is precisely the same as that used by Peter when describing our Lord's ministry and miracles. He says, "God was with him." (Acts 10:38.) The expression, "God being with a man," is a common phrase in the Scriptures, denoting the possession of certain special gifts or graces from God, beyond those ordinarily given to men. Thus 1 Samuel 16:18; 1 Samuel 3:19; and 1 Samuel 18:12-14. v3.—[Jesus answered.] The question has often been asked, "To what did our Lord answer?" No question was put to him. What is the connecting link between the words of Nicodemus, and the solemn statement contained in the first words which our Lord addressed to him? I believe the true reply to these questions is, that our Lord, as on many other occasions, made answer according to what He saw going on in Nicodemus' heart. He knew that the inquirer before Him, like all the Jews, was expecting the appearance of Messiah, and was even suspecting that he had found Him. He therefore begins, by telling him at once what was absolutely needful if he would belong to Messiah's kingdom. It was not a temporal kingdom, as he vainly supposed, but a spiritual one. It was not a kingdom, in which all persons born of the seed of Abraham, would, as a matter of course, have a place because of their birth. It was a kingdom in which grace, not blood, was the indispensable condition of admission. The first thing needful in order to belong to Messiah's kingdom, was to be "born again." Men must renounce all idea of privileges by reason of their natural birth. All men, whether Jews or Gentiles, must be born again, born anew, born from above by a spiritual birth.— "Nicodemus," our Lord seems to say, "if you want to know how a man is to become a member of Messiah's kingdom, understand this day, that the first step is to be born again. Think not because Abraham is your father, that Messiah will acknowledge you as one of his subjects. I tell you at once, that the first thing you and all other men need is a new birth." I am quite aware that several other explanations have been given of the link between Nicodemus' remark and our Lord's opening assertion. I will only say, that the one I have given, appears to me by far the simplest and most satisfactory. [Verily, verily, I say unto thee.] This expression, which is peculiar to John's Gospel, has been already commented on. (John 1:51.) But it is useful to remark, in considering the verse before us, that the phrase is never used except in connection with some statement of great importance and solemnity. [Except a man.] The Greek word which our version has rendered "a man," would be more literally translated, "any one," or "any person." The change called the "new birth," our Lord would have us know, is of universal necessity. Nobody can be saved without it. [Born again.] The Greek word here rendered "again," might be translated with equal correctness, "from above," i.e. from heaven, or from God. It is so translated in this chapter, (John 3:31,) and in four other places in the New Testament. (John 19:11; James 1:17; James 3:15; James 3:17.) In one other place, (Galatians 4:9,) it is "again." Many commentators in every age, as Origen, Cyril, Theophylact, Bullinger, Lightfoot, Erasmus, Bengel, have maintained strongly, that "born from above," and not "born again," is the true and better translation of the phrase. Cranmer's version renders it "born from above," and our own translators have allowed it in a marginal reading. My own impression agrees with that of most commentators, that "born again" is the right translation.— For one thing, it seems most probable that Nicodemus understood our Lord to mean "born again," or else he would hardly have asked the question, "Can a man enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?"— For another thing, the Greek words used in four other places where regeneration is spoken of in the New Testament, admit of no other meaning than being "born again," and could not possibly be rendered "born from above." See 1 Peter 1:3, 1 Peter 1:23; Matthew 19:28; Titus 3:5. The point is happily not one of importance, and men may agree to differ about it, if they cannot convince one another. Every true Christian is undoubtedly "born from above" by the quickening power of God in heaven,— as well as "born again" by a second spiritual birth. The meaning of our Lord when He said, "except a man be born again," is unhappily a subject on which there is a wide difference of opinion in the Church of Christ.— The expression at any rate cannot be said to stand alone. It is used six times in the Gospel of John, once in the first Epistle of Peter, and six times in the first Epistle of John. (John 1:13; John 3:3, John 3:5-8; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 5:1, 1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:18.) Common sense and fair interpretation of language, point out that "born again, born of the Spirit, and born of God," are expressions so intimately connected with one another, that they mean one and the same thing. The only question is, "What do they mean?" Some think that to be "born again," means nothing more than "an outward reformation, or such outward conformity as a proselyte might yield to a new set of rules of life."— This is an almost obsolete and utterly unsatisfactory interpretation. It makes our Lord tell Nicodemus nothing more than he might have learned from heathen philosophers,— such as Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle; or than he might have heard from any Rabbi about the duties of a proselyte from heathenism to Judaism. Some think that to be "born again," means to be admitted into the Church of Christ by baptism, and to receive a spiritual change of heart inseparably connected with baptism.— This again is an unsatisfactory interpretation. For one thing, it seems improbable, that the first truth which our Lord would propound to an inquiring Pharisee, would be the necessity of baptism. He certainly never did so on any other occasion.— For another thing, if our Lord only meant baptism, it is difficult to account for the astonishment and perplexity which Nicodemus expressed on hearing our Lord's words. Baptism was not a thing with which a Pharisee was unacquainted. In the Jewish Church proselytes were baptized.— Last, but not least, it is clear from John's first Epistle, that to be "born again, born of the Spirit, or born of God," means something much greater than baptism. The picture which the apostle there gives of the man who is "born of God," could certainly not be given of the man who is baptized. The true view of the expression I believe to be this. Being "born again," means that complete change of heart and character which is produced in a man by the Holy Ghost, when he repents, believes on Christ, and becomes a true Christian. It is a change which is frequently spoken of in the Bible. In Ezekiel it is called "taking away the stony heart and giving a heart of flesh,"— "giving a new heart, and putting within a new spirit." (Ezekiel 11:19; Ezekiel 36:26.) In Acts it is called "repentance and conversion." (Acts 3:19.) In Romans it is called "being alive from the dead." (Romans 6:13.) In Corinthians it is called "being a new creature." (2 Corinthians 5:17.) In Ephesians it is called "being quickened." (Ephesians 2:1.) In Colossians it is called "putting off the old man and putting on the new." (Colossians 3:9-10.) In Titus it is called the "washing of regeneration." (Titus 3:5.) In Peter it is called "being called out of darkness into light," and being "made partaker of the divine nature." (1 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 1:4.) In John it is called "passing from death to life." (1 John 3:14.) I believe that all these expressions come to the same thing in the end. They are all the same truth, only viewed from different sides. They all mean that mighty inward change of heart, which our Lord here calls a "new birth," and which John the Baptist foretold would specially characterize Messiah's kingdom. He was to baptize not with water, but with the Holy Ghost. Our Lord begins His address to Nicodemus by taking up His forerunner's prediction:— He tells him that he must be "born again" or baptized with the Spirit.— Human nature is so entirely corrupt, diseased, and ruined by the fall, that all who would be saved must be born again. No lesser change will suffice. They need nothing less than a new birth. [He cannot see.] This expression has received two interpretations. Some think that it means, "he cannot understand or comprehend." Others think that it means, "he cannot enter, enjoy, partake of, or possess." The last I believe to be the true meaning of the expression. The first is truth, but not the truth of the text. The second is confirmed by the language used in the fifth verse, and is a common form of speech of which there are many instances in the Bible. Thus we find, to "see life,'' (John 3:36,)— to "see corruption," (Psalms 16:10,)— to "see death," (John 8:51,)— to "see evil," (Psalms 90:15,)— to "see sorrow." (Revelation 18:7.) [The kingdom of God.] This expression means that spiritual kingdom which Messiah came into the world to set up, and of which all believers are the subjects,— the kingdom which is now small, and weak, and despised, but which shall be great and glorious at the second advent. Our Lord declares that no man can belong to that kingdom and be one of its subjects, without a new birth. To belong to the covenant of Israel with all its temporal privileges, a man need only be born of Jewish parents. To belong to Messiah's kingdom, a man must be "born again" of the Spirit, and have a new heart. Luther's remark on this verse, quoted by Stier, is worth reading. He supposes our Lord to say, "My doctrine is not of doing, and of leaving undone, but of being and becoming; so that it is not a new work to be done, but the being new created;— not the living otherwise but the being new born." The unvarying suitableness of our Lord's teaching to the special state of mind of those whom He taught, deserves observation. To the young ruler fond of his money, He says, "Sell all and give to the poor."— To the multitude craving food, He says, "Labour not for the meat that perisheth."— To the Samaritan woman coming to draw water, He commends "living water."— To the Pharisee proud of his birth, as a son of Abraham, He says, "Ye must be born again." (Luke 18:22; John 6:27; John 4:10.) v4.—[Nicodemus saith....how.] The question of Nicodemus is precisely one of those which the natural ignorance of man in spiritual things prompts a person to ask. Just as the Samaritan woman, in the 4th chapter, put a carnal meaning on our Lord's words about "living water," and the Jews, in the 6th chapter, put a carnal meaning on the "bread of God," so Nicodemus puts a carnal meaning on the expression "born again."— There is nothing which the heart of man in every part and every age of the world is so slow to understand as the work of the Holy Ghost. Our minds are so gross and sensuous, that we cannot take in the idea of an inward and spiritual operation. Unless we can see things and touch things in religion we are slow to believe them. [When he is old.] This expression seems to indicate that Nicodemus himself was an old man when this conversation took place. If this be so, it is only fair, in judging his case, to make some allowance for the slowness with which old age receives new opinions, and specially in the things of religion. At the same time it supplies an encouraging proof that no man is too old to be converted. One of our Lord's first converts was an old man! v6.—[Except....born of water and of the Spirit.] This famous text has unhappily given rise to widely different interpretations. On one thing only respecting it, nearly all commentators are agreed. It is the same truth that is laid down in the third verse, only laid down with greater fulness in compassion to Nicodemus' weakness of understanding. But what does it mean? The expression "born of water" is peculiar to this place, and occurs nowhere else in the Bible. It cannot be literally interpreted. No one can be literally "born of water." What then does the phrase signify? When can it be said of any one, that he was "born of water and of the Spirit"? The first and commonest interpretation is to refer the text entirely to baptism, and to draw from it the inseparable connection of baptism and spiritual regeneration.— According to this view of the text, our Lord tells Nicodemus that baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, and is the appointed means of giving new birth to the heart of man. "If you wish to belong to my kingdom, you must be born again, as I have already said; and if you wish to be born again, the only way to obtain this mighty blessing is to be baptized. Except a man be regenerated or born again by baptism, he cannot enter my kingdom." This is the view of the text which is maintained by the fathers, by the Roman Catholic writers, by the Lutheran commentators, and by many English divines down to the present day. It is a view which is supported by much learning, and by many strange and far-fetched arguments, such as Genesis 1:2. It is, however, a view which to my own mind is utterly unsatisfactory. The second, and less common interpretation, is to refer the text partly to baptism and partly to that real regeneration of heart, which a man may receive, like the penitent thief, without having been baptized.— According to this view, our Lord tells Nicodemus that a new birth is absolutely necessary to salvation, and that to be baptized, or "born of water," is one of the appointed ways by which regeneration is effected. Those who hold this view deny as stoutly as any that there is any inseparable connection between baptism and regeneration. They hold that multitudes are "born of water" who are never born of the Spirit. But they maintain that the word "water" must be intended to point us to baptism, and that by the use of the expression, "born of water," our Lord meant to defend both John's baptism and His own, and to show their value. This is the view of the text which is maintained by some few of the best Roman Catholic writers, such as Rupertus and Ferus,— by almost all the English Reformers, and by many excellent commentators down to the present day. It is a view, which to my own mind seems not much more satisfactory than the former one already described, on account of the strange consequences which it involves. The third, and much the least common interpretation, is to refer the text entirely to the regeneration of man's heart, and to exclude baptism altogether from any place in it.— According to this view, our Lord explains to Nicodemus, by the use of a figure, what He had meant when he spoke of being "born again." He would have Nicodemus know that a man must have his heart as thoroughly cleansed and renewed by the Spirit as the body is cleansed and purified by water. He must be born of the Spirit working on his inward nature, as water works on the material body. In short, he must have a "clean heart" created in him if he would belong to Messiah's kingdom. Most of those who take this view, consider that baptism was certainly meant to point to the change of heart described in the text, but that this text was meant to point out something distinct from baptism, and even more important than baptism. This is the view which I believe to be the true one, and to which I unhesitatingly adhere. Those who hold that baptism is not referred to in this text, are undoubtedly a small minority among theologians, but their names are weighty. Among them will be found Calvin, Zwingle, Bullinger, Gualter, Archbishop Whitgift, Bishop Prideaux, Whitaker, Fulke, Poole, Hutcheson, Charnock, Gill, Cartwright, Grotius, Cocceius, Gomarus, Piscator, Rivetus, Chamier, Witsius, Mastricht, Turretin, Lampe, Burkitt, A. Clarke, and, according to Lampe, Wycliffe, Daillé and Parsæus.— I do not assert this on second-hand information. I have verified the assertion by examining with my own eyes the works of all the authors above named, excepting the three referred to by Lampe. On the precise meaning of the word "water" they are not agreed. But they all hold that our Lord did not mean baptism when He spoke of being "born of water and the Spirit."— Dean Alford, I observe, says that the expression "refers to the token, or outward sign of baptism, on any honest interpretation." How far it is justifiable to use such language about an opinion supported by so many great names, I leave to the reader to decide! Those who wish to see the view of the text which I advocate more fully defended, will find what they want in Lampe's Dissertations and Chamier's Panstratia. In adhering to a view of this text which is adopted by so few commentators, I feel a natural desire to give the reasons of my opinion at full length, and I think that the importance of the subject in the present day justifies me in doing so. In giving these reasons I must decline entering into questions which are not directly before me. The value of the sacrament of baptism,— the right of infants to baptism,— the true meaning of the Church of England Baptismal Service, are matters which I shall not touch. The meaning of our Lord's words, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit," is the only point to which I shall confine myself. I believe that in using these words our Lord did not refer to baptism, and I think so for the following reasons. (a.) Firstly, there is nothing in the words of the text which necessarily requires to be referred to baptism. "Water,"— "washing,"— and "cleansing" are figurative expressions, frequently used in Scripture, in order to denote a spiritual operation on man's heart. (See Psalms 51:7-10; Isaiah 44:3; Jeremiah 4:14; Ezekiel 36:25; John 4:10; John 7:38-39.) The expression, "Born of water and of the Spirit," is doubtless very peculiar. But it is not more peculiar than the parallel expression, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." (Matthew 3:11.) To explain this last text by the tongues of fire on the day of Pentecost, is an utterly unsatisfactory interpretation, and confines the fulfilment of a mighty general promise to one single act and one single day. I believe that in each case an element is mentioned in connection with the Spirit, in order to show the nature of the Spirit's operation. Men must be "baptized with the Holy Ghost," purifying their hearts from corruption, as fire purifies metal, and must be "born of the Spirit," cleansing their hearts as water cleanses the body. The use of fire and water as the great instruments of purification, was well known to the Jews. See Numbers 31:23, where both are mentioned together. Chrysostom well remarks that "Scripture sometimes connects the grace of the Spirit with fire, and sometimes with water." (b.) Secondly, the assertion that "water" must mean baptism, because baptism is the ordinary means of regeneration, is an assertion utterly destitute of Scriptural proof. It is no doubt written of professing saints and believers, that "they have been buried with Christ in baptism," and that "as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Romans 6:4; Galatians 3:27.) But there is not a single text which declares that baptism is the only way by which people are born again. On the contrary, we find two plain texts in which regeneration is distinctly ascribed, not to baptism, but to the word, (1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18.) Moreover the case of Simon Magus clearly proves, that in apostolic times all persons did not receive grace when they were baptized. Peter tells him a very few days after his baptism: "Thou art in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity,— thy heart is not right in the sight of God,— thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter." (Acts 8:21-23.) The assertion, therefore, that "water" must mean baptism, is a mere gratuitous assumption, and must fall to the ground. (c.) Thirdly, if "water" in the text before us means baptism, it follows as a logical consequence that baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, and that all who have died unbaptized since these words were spoken, have been lost! The penitent thief was lost on this theory, for he was never baptized! All infants who have died unbaptized have been lost! The whole body of the Quakers, who die in their own communion, are lost! There is no evading this conclusion, unless we adopt the absurd and untenable hypothesis that the kingdom of God in this solemn passage means nothing more than the visible church. Where our Lord, in declaring a great general truth, makes no exceptions, we have no right to make them. If words mean anything, to refer "water" to baptism excludes unbaptized persons from heaven! And yet there is not another instance in Scripture of an outward ordinance being made absolutely necessary to salvation, and specially an ordinance which a man cannot confer on himself. A new, regenerate heart is undoubtedly necessary to the salvation of every one, without exception, and it is of this only, I believe, that the text before us speaks. (d.) Fourthly, if we accept the theory that baptism is the ordinary means of conveying the grace of regeneration, that all baptized persons are necessarily regenerated, and that all who are "born of water" are at the same time born of the Spirit, we are irresistibly involved in the most dangerous and pernicious consequences.— We pour contempt on the whole work of the Spirit, and on the blessed doctrine of regeneration. We bring into the Church a new and unscriptural kind of new birth, a new birth that cannot be seen by its fruits. We make out that people are "born of God" when they have not one of the marks of regeneration laid down by John.— We encourage the rankest antinomianism. We lead people to suppose that they have grace in their hearts while they are servants of sin, and that they have the Holy Spirit within them while they are obeying the lusts of the flesh.— Last, but not least, we pour contempt on the holy sacrament of baptism. We turn it into a mere form, in which faith and prayer have no place at all. We lead people to suppose that it matters nothing in what spirit they bring their children to baptism, and that if water is sprinkled, and certain words are used, an infant is, as a matter of course, born again. Worst of all, we induce people secretly to despise baptism, because we teach them that it always conveys a mighty spiritual blessing, while their own eyes tell them, that, in a multitude of cases, it does no good at all.— I see no possibility of avoiding these consequences, however little some persons who hold the inseparability of baptism and regeneration may intend them. Happily I have the comfort of thinking that there is an utter want of logic in some hearts which have much grace. (e.) Fifthly, if "born of water and of the Spirit" was meant to teach Nicodemus that baptism is the ordinary means of conveying spiritual regeneration, it is very difficult to understand why our Lord rebuked him for not knowing it. "Knowest thou not these things?" How could he know them? That there was such a thing as baptism, he knew as a Pharisee. But that baptism was the appointed means of conveying "new birth," he could not know. It was a doctrine nowhere taught in the Old Testament. It is a doctrine, on the showing of its own advocates, peculiar to Christianity. And yet Nicodemus is rebuked for not knowing it! To my mind this is inexplicable. The necessity of a thorough change of heart, on the contrary, Nicodemus might have known from the Old Testament Scriptures. And it was for ignorance of this, not for ignorance of baptismal regeneration, that he was rebuked. (f.) Sixthly and lastly, if it be true that "to be born of water" means baptism, and that baptism is the ordinary means of conveying the grace of regeneration, it is most extraordinary that there is so little about baptism in the Epistles of the New Testament. In Romans it is only twice mentioned,— and in 1st Corinthians, seven times.— In Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews, and 1st Peter we find it named once in each Epistle. In thirteen of the remaining Epistles it is neither named nor referred to. In the two Pastoral Epistles to Timothy, where we might expect something about baptism, if anywhere, there is not a word about it! In the Epistle to Titus the only text that can possibly be applied to baptism is by no means clearly applicable. (Titus 3:5.) Nor is this all. In the one Epistle which mentions baptism seven times, we find the writer saying that "Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel," and actually "thanking God," that he had "baptized none of the Corinthians, save Crispus and Gaius." (1 Corinthians 1:14, 1 Corinthians 1:17.) He would surely never have said this, if all whom he baptized were at once born again. Imagine Paul saying, "I thank God I regenerated none of you"! Moreover, it is a startling fact, that this very same Apostle, in the very same Epistle, says to these same Corinthians, "I have begotten you through the Gospel." (1 Corinthians 4:15.) My deliberate conviction is, that Paul would never have written these sentences, if he had believed that the only way to be born of the Spirit was to be baptized. I give these reasons with a sorrowful feeling that to many they are given in vain. But I have felt it due to myself, in maintaining an opinion about a most important text which is not commonly held, to state fully my reasons, and to show that my opinion is not lightly maintained. Before leaving this subject, I think it right, in self-defense, to say something about the fact, that the view I maintain is not held by the great majority of commentators. This fact undoubtedly calls for some explanation. With regard to the Fathers, no one can read their writings without seeing that they were fallible men. On no point does their weakness appear so strongly, as in their language about the sacraments. The man who intends to abide by all the opinions of the Fathers about the sacraments, will have to swallow a great deal. After all, the very earliest Father, whose commentary on John's Gospel is extant, is Origen, who died in 253, A.D. The true view of the text before us, might easily be lost in the period of at least 150 years between Origen's day and the days of John. Tertullian incidentally applies the text before us to baptism, in one of his writings. But even he was not born till 160, A.D., at least two generations after John's time. With regard to the Lutheran writers, their avowed opinions upon the sacraments make their interpretations of the text before us of little weight. They have a peculiar sacramental theory to maintain when they expound Scripture, and to that theory they steadfastly adhere. Yet even Brentius on this text confesses, that the baptism here signified by "water," means something much more than the sacrament of baptism, and includes the whole doctrine of the Gospel.— The Roman Catholic commentators are, of course, even more fettered in their views of the sacraments than the Lutherans, and hardly call for any remark. Their constant endeavour in expounding Scripture, is to maintain the sacramental system of their own church, and a text like that before us is unhesitatingly applied to baptism. With regard to our own English reformers and their immediate successors, their opinions about a text like this are perhaps less valuable than upon any subject. They always display an excessive anxiety to agree with the Fathers. They were anxious in every way to conciliate opponents, and to support their own Protestantism by appeals to primitive antiquity. When, therefore, they saw that the Fathers referred the text before us to baptism, and that at best the point was doubtful, we cannot wonder that they held, that to be "born of water" was to be baptized. Yet even they seem not unanimous on the point; and Latimer's well-known assertion, that "to be christened with water is not regeneration," must not be forgotten.— The famous remarks of Hooker, which are so frequently thrown in the teeth of those who take the view of "water and the Spirit," which I do, are a curious instance of the coolness with which a great man can sometimes draw an illogical conclusion in his own favour, from some broad general premise. He lays down the general principle "that when a literal construction of a text will stand, that furthest from the letter is commonly the worst." He then proceeds to take it for granted, that to interpret "born of water" of baptism, is the literal construction of the text now before us. Unfortunately this is precisely the point that I for one do not concede; and his conclusion is consequently, to my mind, worthless. Moreover when we talk of a "literal" sense, there must evidently be some limit to it. If not, we cannot answer the Roman Catholic, when he proves transubstantiation from the words, "this is my body." I believe that for a true and sound exposition of the text before us, we must look to the Puritans and Dutch divines of the seventeenth century. It was necessary for men to be a generation further off from Romanism, before they were able to give a dispassionate opinion about such a text as this. The early Protestants did not see the consequences of the language they sometimes used about baptism with sufficient clearness. Otherwise, I believe they would not have written about it as they did. To any one who asks for a specimen of the 17th century divinity, I would say, that one of the simplest and best statements of the true meaning of the text before us, will be found in Poole's Annotations. In leaving the whole subject, there is one fact which I think deserves very serious consideration. Those Churches of Christendom at the present day, which distinctly maintain that all baptized persons are born of the Spirit, are as a general rule, the most corrupt churches in the world. Those bodies of Christians on the other hand, which deny the inseparable connection of baptism and the new birth, are precisely those bodies which are most pure in faith and practice, and do most for the extension of the Gospel in the world. This is a great fact which ought not to be forgotten. v6.—[That which is born...flesh...spirit.] In this verse, our Lord gives Nicodemus the reason why the change of heart called "new birth," is a thing of such absolute necessity, and why no slight moral change will suffice. Nicodemus had spoken of "entering a second time into his mother's womb." Our Lord tells him, that even if such a thing was possible, it would not make him fit for the kingdom of God. The child of human parents would always be like the parents from which it sprung, if it was born a hundred times over. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." All men and women are by nature corrupt, sinful, fleshly, and alienated from God. "They that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:8.) Their children will always be born with a nature like that of their parents. To bring a clean thing out of an unclean, is proverbially impossible. A bramble will never bear grapes, however much it may be cultivated, and a natural man will never be a godly man without the Spirit. In order to be really spiritual and fit for the kingdom of God, a new power from without must enter into a man's nature. "That which is born of the spirit is spirit." The sentence is undoubtedly very elliptical, and expressed in abstract terms. It is like Paul's words, "The carnal mind is enmity against God." (Romans 8:7.) But the general meaning is unmistakable. Human nature is so utterly fallen, corrupt, and carnal, that nothing can come from it by natural generation, but a fallen, corrupt, and carnal offspring. There is no self-curative power in man. He will always go on reproducing himself. To become spiritual and fit for communion with God, nothing less is required than the entrance of the Spirit of God into our hearts. In one word, we must have that new birth of the Spirit which our Lord twice described to Nicodemus. The word "flesh," I am inclined to think, with Poole and Dyke, is taken in two senses in this verse. In the first case, it means the natural body of man, as in John 1:14. In the second case, it means the corrupt carnal nature of man, as in Galatians 5:17.— The same remark applies to the word Spirit. In the first instance, it means the Holy Spirit, and in the second, the spiritual nature which the Spirit produces. The offspring of all children of Adam is fleshly. The offspring of the Spirit is spiritual. Neither the grace, nor rank, nor money, nor learning of parents will prevent a child having a corrupt heart, if it is naturally born of the flesh. Nothing will make any one spiritual but being born again of the spirit. It must be carefully remembered, in considering this verse, that it cannot be applied to the human nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. Though He had a true body like our own, He was not "born of the flesh" as we are, by natural generation, but conceived by the miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost. v7.—[Marvel not...must be born again.] In reading this verse, the stress ought to be laid on the two last words, "born again." It is evident that the thing which stumbled Nicodemus was the idea of any "new birth" at all being necessary. He felt unable to understand what this "new birth" was. Our Lord forbids him to marvel, and proceeds to explain the new birth by a familiar illustration. It is a noteworthy and striking fact, that no doctrine has excited such surprise in every age of the Church, and has called forth so much opposition from the great and learned, as this very doctrine of the new birth. The men of the present day who sneer at conversions and revivals, as fanaticism and enthusiasm, are nowise better than Nicodemus. Like him, they expose their own ignorance of the work of the Holy Ghost. v8.—[The wind bloweth, &c.] The object of this verse appears to be to explain the work of the Holy Ghost in the regeneration of man, by a familiar illustration drawn from the wind. Mysterious as the Spirit's work was, Nicodemus must allow that there was much of mystery about the wind. "The wind bloweth where it listeth." We cannot account for the direction in which it blows, or for the beginning or extent of its influence. But when we hear the sound of the wind, we do not for a moment question that it is blowing. Our Lord tells Nicodemus that it is just the same with the operations of the Spirit. There is doubtless much about them that is mysterious and incomprehensible. But when we see fruit brought forth, in a manifest change of heart and life, we have no right to question the reality of the Spirit's operations. The last clause of the verse is undeniably somewhat difficult,— "So is every one that is born of the Spirit." We should rather have expected, "So does the Spirit operate on every one that is born again." And this was, no doubt, our Lord's meaning. Yet the form of speech which our Lord uses is not altogether without parallel in the New Testament. For instance, we read, "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed." (Matthew 13:24.) The likeness in this case is clearly not between the man and the kingdom. The meaning is that the whole story is an illustration of the kingdom of heaven. So also we read that "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchantman seeking goodly pearls," and might make a similar remark. (Matthew 13:45.) The Greek word translated "wind," at the beginning of this verse, might be rendered with equal correctness, "the Spirit." Many think, as Origen, Augustine, Rupertus, Bengel, Schottgen, Ambrose, Jansenius, Wycliffe's Version, Bucer, and Bede, that it ought to be so rendered. They deny that our Lord brought in the idea of "the wind" at all. They object to it being said of the wind that "it listeth," and say that the expression cannot be applied to any but a person. This notion seems to me, as it does to the great majority of commentators, entirely untenable. For one thing, it creates great awkwardness to make a comparison between the Spirit and the work of the Spirit, which we must do if this theory is correct. "The Spirit bloweth,— and so is every one born of the Spirit"!— For another thing, it seems to me very strange to speak of the Holy Ghost as "blowing," and to speak of the "sound" of the Holy Ghost, or of that "sound'' being heard by Nicodemus. I can see no difficulty Whatever in the expression, "The wind bloweth where it listeth." It is common in the Bible to personify unintelligent things, and to speak of them as having mind and will. Thus our Lord speaks of the "stones crying out." (Luke 19:40.) And the Psalmist says, "The sun knoweth his going down." (Psalms 104:19.) See also Job 38:8, Job 38:35.— In addition to this, I see a peculiar beauty in the selection of the wind as an illustration of the work of the Spirit. Not only is the illustration most apt and striking, but it is one which is used in other places in Scripture. See for instance, in the vision of the dry bones, how Ezekiel cries to the "wind" to breathe on the slain. (Ezekiel 37:9.) See also Song of Son 4:16, and Acts 2:2.— Last, but not least, it seems to me, that Nicodemus' state of perplexity makes it highly probable that our Lord would graciously help his ignorance by the use of a familiar illustration, like that of the wind. If no illustration at all was used in this verse, it is not quite easy to see how its language would help Nicodemus to understand the doctrine of the new birth.— But if the verse contains a familiar illustration, the whole purpose of our Lord in saying what He did becomes clear and plain. WE have in these verses the second part of the conversation between our Lord Jesus Christ and Nicodemus. A lesson about regeneration is closely followed by a lesson about justification! The whole passage ought always to be read with affectionate reverence. It contains words which have brought eternal life to myriads of souls. These verses show us, firstly, what gross spiritual ignorance there may be in the mind of a great and learned man. We see a "master of Israel" unacquainted with the first elements of saving religion. Nicodemus is told about the new birth, and at once exclaims, "How can these things be?" When such was the darkness of a Jewish teacher, what must have been the state of the Jewish people? It was indeed due time for Christ to appear! The pastors of Israel had ceased to feed the people with knowledge. The blind were leading the blind, and both were falling into the ditch. (Matthew 15:14.) Ignorance like that of Nicodemus is unhappily far too common in the Church of Christ. We must never be surprised if we find it in quarters where we might reasonably expect knowledge. Learning, and rank, and high ecclesiastical office are no proof that a minister is taught by the Spirit. The successors of Nicodemus, in every age, are far more numerous than the successors of Peter. On no point is religious ignorance so common as on the work of the Holy Ghost. That old stumbling-block, at which Nicodemus stumbled, is as much an offence to thousands in the present day as it was in the days of Christ. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 2:14.) Happy is he who has been taught to prove all things by Scripture, and to call no man master upon earth. (1 Thessalonians 5:21; Matthew 23:9.) These verses show us, secondly, the original source from which man's salvation springs. That source is the love of God the Father. Our Lord says to Nicodemus, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." This wonderful verse has been justly called by Luther, "The Bible in miniature." No part of it, perhaps, is so deeply important as the first five words, "God so loved the world." The love here spoken of is not that special love with which the Father regards His own elect, but that mighty pity and compassion with which He regards the whole race of mankind. Its object is not merely the little flock which He has given to Christ from all eternity, but the whole "world" of sinners, without any exception. There is a deep sense in which God loves that world. All whom He has created He regards with pity and compassion. Their sins He cannot love;— but He loves their souls. "His tender mercies are over all His works." (Psalms 145:9.) Christ is God's gracious gift to the whole world. Let us take heed that our views of the love of God are Scriptural and well-defined. The subject is one on which error abounds on either side.— On the one hand we must beware of vague and exaggerated opinions. We must maintain firmly that God hates wickedness, and that the end of all who persist in wickedness will be destruction. It is not true that God's love is "lower than hell." It is not true that God so loved the world that all mankind will be finally saved, but that He so loved the world that He gave His Son to be the Savior of all who believe. His love is offered to all men freely, fully, honestly, and unreservedly, but it is only through the one channel of Christ's redemption. He that rejects Christ cuts himself off from God's love, and will perish everlastingly.— On the other hand, we must beware of narrow and contracted opinions. We must not hesitate to tell any sinner that God loves him. It is not true that God cares for none but His own elect, or that Christ is not offered to any but those who are ordained to eternal life. There is a "kindness and love" in God towards all mankind. It was in consequence of that love that Christ came into the world, and died upon the cross. Let us not be wise above that which is written, or more systematic in our statements than Scripture itself. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. God is not willing that any should perish. God would have all men to be saved. God loves the world. (John 6:32; Titus 3:4; 1 John 4:10; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4; Ezekiel 33:11.) These verses show us, thirdly, the peculiar plan by which the love of God has provided salvation for sinners. That plan is the atoning death of Christ on the cross. Our Lord says to Nicodemus, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." By being "lifted up," our Lord meant nothing less than His own death upon the cross. That death, He would have us know, was appointed by God to be "the life of the world." (John 6:51.) It was ordained from all eternity to be the great propitiation and satisfaction for man's sin. It was the payment, by an Almighty Substitute and Representative, of man's enormous debt to God. When Christ died upon the cross, our many sins were laid upon Him. He was made "sin" for us. He was made "a curse" for us. (2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13.) By His death He purchased pardon and complete redemption for sinners. The brazen serpent, lifted up in the camp of Israel, brought health and cure within the reach of all who were bitten by serpents. Christ crucified, in like manner, brought eternal life within reach of lost mankind. Christ has been lifted up on the cross, and man looking to Him by faith may be saved. The truth before us is the very foundation-stone of the Christian religion. Christ's death is the Christian's life. Christ's cross is the Christian's title to heaven. Christ "lifted up" and put to shame on Calvary is the ladder by which Christians "enter into the holiest," and are at length landed in glory. It is true that we are sinners;— but Christ has suffered for us. It is true that we deserve death;— but Christ has died for us. It is true that we are guilty debtors;— but Christ has paid our debts with His own blood. This is the real Gospel! This is the good news! On this let us lean while we live. To this let us cling when we die. Christ has been "lifted up" on the cross, and has thrown open the gates of heaven to all believers. These verses show us, fourthly, the way in which the benefits of Christ's death are made our own. That way is simply to put faith and trust in Christ. Faith is the same thing as believing. Three times our Lord repeats this glorious truth to Nicodemus. Twice He proclaims that "whosoever believeth shall not perish." Once He says, "He that believeth on the Son of God is not condemned." Faith in the Lord Jesus is the very key of salvation. He that has it has life, and he that has it not has not life. Nothing whatever beside this faith is necessary to our complete justification; but nothing whatever, except this faith, will give us an interest in Christ. We may fast and mourn for sin, and do many things that are right, and use religious ordinances, and give all our goods to feed the poor, and yet remain unpardoned, and lose our souls.— But if we will only come to Christ as guilty sinners, and believe on Him, our sins shall at once be forgiven, and our iniquities shall be entirely put away. Without faith there is no salvation; but through faith in Jesus, the vilest sinner may be saved. If we would have a peaceful conscience in our religion, let us see that our views of saving faith are distinct and clear. Let us beware of supposing that justifying faith is anything more than a sinner's simple trust in a Savior, the grasp of a drowning man on the hand held out for his relief.— Let us beware of mingling anything else with faith in the matter of justification. Here we must always remember faith stands entirely alone. A justified man, no doubt, will always be a holy man. True believing will always be accompanied by godly living. But that which gives a man an interest in Christ, is not his living, but his faith. If we would know whether our faith is genuine, we do well to ask ourselves how we are living. But if we would know whether we are justified by Christ, there is but one question to be asked. That question is, "Do we believe?" These verses show us, lastly, the true cause of the loss of man's soul. Our Lord says to Nicodemus, "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." The words before us form a suitable conclusion to the glorious tidings which we have just been considering. They completely clear God of injustice in the condemnation of sinners. They show in simple and unmistakable terms, that although man's salvation is entirely of God, his ruin, if he is lost, will be entirely from himself. He will reap the fruit of his own sowing. The doctrine here laid down ought to be carefully remembered. It supplies an answer to a common cavil of the enemies of God's truth. There is no decreed reprobation, excluding any one from heaven. "God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." There is no unwillingness on God's part to receive any sinner, however great his sins. God has sent "light" into the world, and if man will not come to the light, the fault is entirely on man's side. His blood will be on his own head, if he makes shipwreck of his soul. The blame will be at his own door, if he misses heaven. His eternal misery will be the result of his own choice. His destruction will be the work of his own hand. God loved him, and was willing to save him; but he "loved darkness," and therefore darkness must be his everlasting portion. He would not come to Christ, and therefore he could not have life. (John 5:40.) The truths we have been considering are peculiarly weighty and solemn. Do we live as if we believed them?— Salvation by Christ's death is close to us to-day. Have we embraced it by faith, and made it our own?— Let us never rest till we know Christ as our own Savior. Let us look to Him without delay for pardon and peace, if we have never looked before. Let us go on believing on Him, if we have already believed. "Whosoever," is His own gracious word,— "whosoever believeth on Him, shall not perish, but have eternal life." ================== Notes— v9.—[Nicodemus answered...how...these things be?] This is the third and last time that Nicodemus speaks during his visit to Christ, so far as it is reported to us. His question here is a striking and instructive instance of the deep spiritual ignorance which may be found in the mind of a learned man. In four different ways our Lord had brought before him one and the same lesson. First, He had laid down the great principle that every man must be "born again."— Secondly, He had repeated the same thing in fuller words, and brought in the idea of "water," to illustrate the work of the Spirit.— Thirdly, he had shown the necessity of the new birth, from the natural corruption of man.— Fourthly, He had illustrated the work of the Spirit a second time by the instance of the "wind." And yet now, after all that our Lord has said, this learned Pharisee seems utterly in the dark, and asks the pitiable question, "How can these things be?" We have no right to be surprised at the vast ignorance of saving religion which we see on all sides, when we consider the history of Nicodemus. We should make up our minds to expect to find spiritual darkness the rule, and spiritual light the exception. Few things in the long run give so much trouble to ministers, missionaries, teachers, and district-visitors, as beginning work with extravagant and unscriptural expectations. v10.—[Jesus answered and said.] It will be observed, that our Lord does not answer the question of Nicodemus directly, but rebukes him sharply for his ignorance. Yet it ought to be carefully noted, as Melancthon remarks, that before He concludes what He now begins to say, He supplies a complete answer to His inquirer. He shows him the true root and spring of regeneration, namely, faith in Himself. He answers his groping inquiry, "How can these things be?" by showing him the first step in saving religion, viz., to believe in the Son of God. Let Nicodemus begin like a little child, by simply believing on Him who was to be lifted up on the cross, and he would soon understand "how" a man could be born again, even in his old age. [Art thou a master of Israel.] The English version of this question hardly gives the full force of the original. It should be literally rendered, "Art thou the master of Israel?" i.e., "Art thou the famous teacher and instructor of the Jews?" "Dost thou profess to be a light of them that sit in darkness, and an instructor of others?"— The expression certainly seems to indicate that Nicodemus was a man of established reputation as a teacher among the Pharisees. When the teachers were so ignorant, what must have been the state of the taught? [Knowest not these things.] These words unquestionably imply rebuke. The things which our Lord had just mentioned, Nicodemus ought to have known and understood. He professed to be a religious teacher. He professed to know the Old Testament Scriptures. The doctrine, therefore, of the necessity of a new birth ought not to have appeared strange to him. "A clean heart,— circumcision of the heart,— a new heart,— a heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone," were expressions and ideas which he must have read in the prophets, and which all pointed towards the new birth. (Psalms 51:10; Jeremiah 4:4; Ezekiel 18:31; Ezekiel 36:26.) His ignorance consequently was deserving of blame. The verse before us appears to me to supply a strong argument against the idea that the expression, "born of water and the Spirit" means baptism. I do not see how Nicodemus could possibly have known this doctrine, as it is nowhere revealed in the Old Testament, and even its own advocates confine it to New Testament times. To blame a man for not knowing "things" which he could not possibly know, would be obviously most unjust, and entirely at variance with the general tenor of our Lord's dealings. v11.—[We speak that we do know, &c.] Whom does our Lord mean here when He says "we"? The answers to this question are various. (a.) Some think, as Luther, Brentius, Bucer, Gualter, Aretius, Hutcheson, Musculus, Gomarus, Piscator, and Cartwright, that "we" means, "I and John the Baptist." (b.) Some think, as Calvin, Beza, and Scott, that it means, "I and the Old Testament prophets." (c.) Some think, as Alcuin, (according to Maldonatus,) and Wesley, that it means, "I and all who are born of the Spirit." (d.) Some think, as Chrysostom, Cyril, Rupertus, Calovius, Glassius, Chemnitius, Lampe, Leigh, Nifanius, Cornelius á Lapide, Cocceius, Stier and Bengel, that it means either, "I and the Father,"— or "I and the Holy Ghost,"— or "I and both the Father and the Spirit." (e.) Some think, as Theophylact, Zwingle, Poole, and Doddridge, that our Lord only means Himself when He says "we," and that He uses the plural number in order to give weight and dignity to what He says, as kings do. So also He says, "Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?" (Mark 4:30.) "We," in that text, evidently stands for "I."— In John's First Epistle, the first person plural is used instead of the singular repeatedly in the first five verses of the first chapter. The last of these five opinions appears to me by far the most probable and satisfactory.— The three first seem to me to be entirely overthrown by John the Baptist's words in this chapter, (John 3:32,) where he mentions it as a peculiar mark of our Lord's superiority to all other teachers, that "He testifieth what He hath seen and heard."— The fourth opinion appears to me untenable. The fear of Socinianism must not make us wrest texts in ordor to apply them to the Trinity. There is a fitness in our Lord's saying, during His earthly ministry, after His incarnation, "I speak and testify what I have known and seen from all eternity with my Father." But there is no apparent fitness in saying that He and the two other Persons in the Trinity "speak what they have seen." The meaning of the sentence appears to be this, "I declare with authority, and bear witness to truths, which from all eternity I have known and seen, as God in union with the Father and the Holy Ghost. I do not speak (as all merely human ministers must) what I have been taught by others. I do not testify things which I have received as God's servant, as ordinary prophets have, and which I should not have known without God's inspiration. I testify what I have seen with my Father, and knew before the world began." It is like the expression, "I speak that which I have seen with my Father." (John 8:38.) Melancthon thinks that our Lord, in this verse, contrasts the uncertain traditions and human inventions which the Pharisees taught, with the sure, certain, and irrefragable truths of God, which he came to preach. Bucer remarks that the verse contains a practical lesson for all religious teachers. No man has a right to teach, unless he is thoroughly persuaded of the truth of what he teaches. [Ye receive not our witness.] This sentence corresponds so exactly with John the Baptist's words, at John 3:32, that it confirms me in the opinion that our Lord, in this verse, only speaks of Himself. The words before us, as well as those of John the Baptist, must be taken with some qualification: "The greater part of you receive not our testimony."— The object of the verse is to rebuke the unbelief of Nicodemus and all who were like-minded with him among the Jews. The use of the plural number "ye," makes it probable that our Lord in this verse refers not merely to what He had just been saying to Nicodemus, but to all His public teaching at Jerusalem, from the time of His casting out the buyers and sellers in the temple. If we do not adopt this theory, we must suppose Him to mean, "What I have spoken and testified to you about regeneration, is what I continually say to all who come, like you, to inquire of me; and yet neither you nor they believe what I say. You all alike stumble at this stumbling-stone, the new birth." Calvin remarks on this expression, that we ought never to be surprised at unbelief. If men would not receive Christ's testimony, it is no wonder if they will not receive ours. v12.—[If I have told...earthly...heavenly things?] To see the full force of this verse, we should paraphrase it thus. "If ye do not believe what I say when I tell you, as I have done, things that are earthly, how will you believe if I go on, as I shall do, to tell you of things that are heavenly? If you will not believe when ye hear my first lesson, what will ye do when ye hear my second? If ye are stumbled at the very alphabet of my Gospel, what will ye do when I proceed to show you higher and deeper truths?" The difficulty of the verse lies in the two expressions, "earthly things" and "heavenly things." Our Lord does not explain them, and we are therefore left to conjecture their true meaning.— I offer the following explanation with some diffidence, as the most satisfactory one. By "earthly things " I believe our Lord means the doctrine of the "new birth," which He had just been expounding to Nicodemus. By "heavenly things" I believe He means the great and solemn truths which he was immediately about to declare, and which he does declare in rapid succession from this verse down to the end of the conversation.— These truths were His own divinity,— the plan of redemption by His own death on the cross,— the love of God to the whole world, and His consequent provision of salvation,— faith in the Son of God as the only way to escape hell,— and man's wilful rejection of light, the only cause of man's condemnation. But why does our Lord call the new birth an "earthly thing"? I reply that He does so, because it is an "earthly" thing compared with His own divinity and atonement. Regeneration is a thing that takes place in man, here upon earth. The atonement is a transaction that was done for man, and of which the special effect is on man's position before God in heaven. In regeneration God comes down to man, and dwells in him Upon earth. In the atonement Christ takes up man's nature as man's representative, and as man's forerunner goes up into heaven.— Regeneration is a change of which even the men of this world have some faint inkling, and which can be illustrated by such earthly figures as water and wind. Almost every one allows, as Bucer remarks, that he is not so good as he should be, and that he needs some change to fit him for heaven. Christ's divinity, and the incarnation, and the atonement, and justification by faith, are such high and heavenly things that man has no natural conception of them.— Regeneration is so far an "earthly" idea that even irreligious men borrow the word, and talk of regenerating nations, and society. Salvation by faith in Christ's blood is so entirely a "heavenly thing," that it is constantly misunderstood, hated, and sneered at by unconverted men.— When therefore our Lord calls the new birth an "earthly thing," we must understand that he does so comparatively. In itself the new birth is a high, holy, and "heavenly thing." But compared with the doctrine of the incarnation and the atonement, it is an "earthly thing." v13.—[And no man hath ascended, &c.] This verse, according to my view, contains the first "heavenly thing" which our Lord displays to Nicodemus. But the sentence is undeniably a difficult one, and commentators differ widely as to its meaning. Some think, as Calvin. Musculus, Bullinger, Hutcheson, Poole, Quesnel, Schottgen, Dyke, Lightfoot, Leigh, Doddridge, A. Clarke, and Stier, that our Lord here shows to Nicodemus, in highly figurative language, the necessity of divine teaching, in order to understand spiritual truth.— "No child of Adam has ever reached the lofty mysteries of heaven, and made himself acquainted with its high and holy truths, by his own natural understanding. Such knowledge is only possessed by the incarnate Saviour, the Son of man, who has come down from heaven. If you would know spiritual truth, you must sit at His feet, and learn of Him." This view of the text is supported by Proverbs 30:3-4. According to this view, the verse must be taken in close connection with the preceding one, where the ignorance of Nicodemus is exposed. Some think, as Zwingle, Melancthon, Brentius, Aretius, Flacius, and Ferus, that our Lord here shows to Nicodemus, (and again in highly figurative language,) the impossibility of human merit, and the utter inability of man justifying himself, and obtaining an entrance into heaven by his own righteousness.— "No one can possibly ascend into God's presence in heaven, and stand perfect and complete before Him, except the incarnate Saviour, who has come down from heaven to fulfil all righteousness. I am the way to heaven. If you would enter heaven, you must believe on the Son of man, and become a member of His body by faith."— This view of the text appeals for support to Romans 10:6-9. According to this view, the verse must be taken in close connection with the following verse, in which the way of justification is explained. The true view of the text, I venture to think, is as follows. The words of the text are to be taken literally. Our Lord begins His list of "heavenly things" by declaring to Nicodemus His own divine nature and dignity, He reminds him that no one has ever ascended literally into that heaven where God dwells. Enoch, and Elijah, and David, for instance, were doubtless in a place of bliss, when they left this world, but they had not "ascended into heaven." (Acts 2:34.) But that which no man, not even the holiest saint, had attained, was the right and prerogative of Him in whose company Nicodemus was. The Son of man had dwelt from all eternity in heaven, had come down from heaven, would one day ascend again into heaven, and in His divine nature was actually in heaven, one with God the Father, at that very moment.— "Know who it is to whom you are speaking. I am not merely a teacher come from God, as you say. I am the Messiah, the Son of man, foretold by Daniel. I have come down from heaven, according to promise, to save sinners. I shall one day ascend again into heaven, as the victorious forerunner of a saved people. Above all, I am as God in heaven at this moment. I am He who fills heaven and earth."— I prefer this view of the verse to any other, for two reasons. For one thing, it gives a literal meaning to every word in the text. For another, it seems a fitting answer to the first idea which Nicodemus had put forward in the conversation, viz., that our Lord was only "a teacher come from God." It is the view which is in the main held by Rollock, Calovius, and Gomarus, and expounded by them with much ability. The Greek word which we render "but," I am inclined to think, ought to be taken in an adversative rather than in an exceptive sense. Instances of this usage will be found in Matthew 12:4; Mark 13:32; Luke 4:26-27; John 17:12; Revelation 9:4; Revelation 21:27. The thought appears to be, "Man has not, and cannot ascend into heaven. But that which man cannot do, I the Son of man can do." "Heaven," throughout this verse, must be taken in the sense of that immediate and peculiar presence of God, which we can conceive of and express in no other form than by the word "heaven." The expression "which is in heaven," deserves particular notice. It is one of those many expressions in the New Testament which can be explained in no other way than by the doctrine of Christ's divinity. It would be utterly absurd and untrue to say of any mere man, that at the very time he was speaking to another on earth he was in heaven! But it can be said of Christ with perfect truth and propriety. He never ceased to be very God, when He became incarnate. He was "with God and was God." As God He was in heaven while He was speaking to Nicodemus. The expression is one which no Socinian can explain away. If Christ was only a very holy man and nothing more, He could not have used these words. The Socinian explanation of the former part of the verse, viz., that Christ was caught up into heaven after His baptism, and there instructed about the Gospel He was to teach, would be of itself utterly absurd, and a mere theory invented to get over a difficulty. But the conclusion of the verse is a blow at the very root of the Socinian system. It is written not only that Christ "came down from heaven," but that "he is in heaven." It admits of a question whether the Greek words which we translate "which is," do not, both here and in John 1:18, point to that peculiar name of Jehovah, which was doubtless familiar to Nicodemus, "The ever existing One; the living One." It is the same phrase which forms part of Christ's name in Revelation, "Him which is." (Revelation 1:4.) Much of the difficulty of the verse is removed by remembering that the past tense, "hath ascended," admits of being rendered with equal grammatical correctness, "does ascend, can ascend, or will ascend." Pearce takes this view, and quotes in support of it John 1:26; John 3:18; John 5:24; John 6:69; John 11:27; John 20:29. Whitby thinks that throughout this verse our Lord has in view a Rabbinical tradition, that Moses had been into heaven to receive the law,— and that He declares the falsehood of this tradition by saying, "no man, not even Moses, has ascended into heaven." v14.—[As Moses lifted...serpent...so must, &c., &c.] In this verse our Lord proceeds to show Nicodemus another "heavenly thing," viz., the necessity of His own crucifixion. Nicodemus probably thought, like most Jews, that when Messiah appeared, He would come with power and glory, to be exalted and honoured by men. Jesus tells him that so far from this being the case, Messiah must be "cut off" at His first advent, and put to an open shame by being hanged on a tree. He illustrates this by a well-known event in the history of Israel's wanderings, the story of the brazen serpent. (Numbers 21:9.) "Are you expecting me to take to myself power and to restore the kingdom of Israel? Cast away such a vain expectation. I have come to do very different work. I have come to suffer, and to offer up myself as a sacrifice for sin." The mention of Moses, of whom the Pharisees thought so much, was eminently calculated to arrest the attention of Nicodemus. "Even Moses, in whom ye trust, has supplied a most vivid type of my great work on earth— the crucifixion." [The Son of Man must be lifted up.] The expression "Son of Man" was doubtless intended to remind Nicodemus of Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah.— The Greek word rendered "must," signifies ''it behooveth that," "it is necessary that." It is necessary in order that God's promises of a Redeemer may be fulfilled,— the types of the Old Testament sacrifices be accomplished,— the law of God be satisfied,— and a way for God's mercy be provided. In order to all this Messiah must suffer in our stead. The phrase "lifted up," appears to me most decidedly to mean "lifted up on the cross." For one thing we find it so explained in this Gospel. (John 12:32-33.) For another the illustration of the brazen serpent makes it absolutely necessary to explain it so. To apply the phrase, as Calvin and others do, to the "necessity of lifting up and exalting Christ's atonement in Christian teaching," seems to me a mistake. It is needlessly dragging in an idea which the words were not intended to convey. It is truth no doubt, and truth abundantly taught in Scripture, but not the truth of this text. The main points of resemblance in the comparison,— "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,"— form a subject which requires careful handling. The lifting up of the serpent of brass for the relief of Israel when bitten by serpents, is evidently selected by our Lord as an apt illustration of His own crucifixion for sinners. But how far may we press this illustration? Where are we to stop? What are the exact points at which the type and antitype meet? These questions require consideration. Some see a meaning in the "brass" of which the serpent was made, as a shining metal, a strong metal, &c., &c. I cannot see it. Our Lord does not even mention the brass. Some see in the "serpent" hanging on the pole, a type of the devil, the old serpent, bruised by Christ's death on the cross, and openly triumphed over on it. (Colossians 2:15.) I cannot see this at all. It appears to me to confound and mingle up two Scriptural truths, which ought to be kept distinct. Moreover, there is something revolting in the idea, that in order to be healed, the Israelite had to look at a figure of the devil. Some see in "Moses" lifting up the serpent, a type of the law of God requiring payment of its demands, and becoming the cause of Christ dying on the cross. On this I will content myself with saying that I am not satisfied that this idea was in Christ's mind. The points of resemblance appear to me to be these,— (a.) As the Israelites were in sore distress, and dying from the bites of poisonous serpents, so is man in great spiritual danger, and dying from the poisonous effects of sin. (b.) As the serpent of brass was lifted up on a pole in the sight of the camp of Israel, so Christ was to be lifted up on the cross publicly, and in the sight of the whole nation, at the Passover. (c.) As the serpent, lifted up on the pole, was an image of the very thing which had poisoned the Israelites, even so Christ had in Himself no sin, and yet was made and crucified ''in the likeness of sinful flesh," and counted sin. (Romans 8:3.) The brazen serpent was a serpent without poison, and Christ, was a man without sin. The thing which we should specially see in Christ crucified, is our sin laid upon Him, and Him counted as a sinner, and treated as a sinner, and punished as a sinner, for our redemption. In fact we see on the cross our sins punished, crucified, borne, and carried by our Redeemer. (d.) Finally, as the one way by which Israelites obtained relief from the brazen serpent, was by looking at it, so the one way to get benefit from Christ, is to look at him by faith. The feeblest look brought cure to an Israelite, and the weakest faith, if true and sincere, brings salvation to sinners. It should be carefully noted, that it seems impossible to reconcile this verse with that modern divinity which can see nothing in Christ's death but a great act of self-sacrifice, and which denies Christ's substitution for us on the cross, and the imputation of our sins to Him. Such divinity withers up such a verse as this entirely, and cuts out the life, heart, and marrow of its meaning. Unless words are most violently wrested from their ordinary signification, the illustration before us points directly towards two great truths of the Gospel. One of them is that Christ's death upon the cross was meant to have a medicinal, health-conferring effect upon our souls, and that there was something in it far above a mere martyr's example. The other truth is, that when Christ died upon the cross, He was dealt with as our Substitute and Representative, and punished, through the imputation of our sins, in our place. The thing that Israel saw on the pole, and from which they got health, was an image of the very serpent that bit them. The object that Christians should see on the cross, is a Divine Person, made sin and a curse for them, and allowing that very sin that has poisoned the world to be imputed to Him, and laid upon His head.— It is easy work to sneer at the words "vicarious sacrifice," and "imputed merit," as nowhere to be found in Scripture. But it is not so easy to disprove the fact that the "ideas" are constantly to be met with in the Bible. The use of the brazen serpent in this verse, as an illustration of Christ's death and its purpose, must not be abused, and made an excuse for turning every incident of the history of Israel in the wilderness into an allegory. It is very important not to attach an allegorical meaning to Bible facts without authority. Such things as the manna, the smitten rock, and the brazen serpent, are allegorized for us by the Holy Ghost. But where the Holy Ghost has not pointed out any allegory, we ought to be very cautious in our assertions that allegory exists. Bucer's remarks on this subject deserve reading. v15.—[That whosoever believeth...not perish...life.] In this verse our Lord declares to Nicodemus the great end and purpose for which the Son of man was to be "lifted up" on the cross, and the way in which the benefits of His crucifixion become our own. In interpreting the verse, we should carefully remember that the comparison of the serpent lifted up in the wilderness must be carried through to the end of the sentence. The Son of man must be lifted up on the cross, that whosoever believeth on Him, or looks to Him by faith, as the Israelites looked to the brazen serpent, should not perish in hell. The expression "whosoever," deserves special notice. It might have been equally well translated "every one." It is intended to show us the width and breadth of Christ's offers of salvation. They are for "every one," without exception, that "believeth." The expression "believeth in Him," is deeply important. It describes that one act of man's soul which is needful to give him an interest in Jesus Christ. It is not a mere belief of the head that there is such a Person as Jesus Christ, and that He is a Saviour. It is a belief of the heart and will. When a person, feeling his desperate need by reason of sin, flees to Jesus Christ, and trusts in Him, leans on Him, and commits his soul entirely to Him as his Saviour and Redeemer, he is said, in the language of the text, to "believe on Him."— The simpler our views of faith are, the better. The more steadily we keep in view the Israelites looking at the brazen serpent, the more we shall understand the words before us. "Believing" is neither more nor less than heart-looking. Whosoever looked at the brazen serpent was made well, however ill he was, and however feeble his look. Just so, whosoever looks to Jesus by faith, is pardoned, however great his sins may have been, and however feeble his faith.— Did the Israelite look? That was the only question in the matter of being healed from the serpent's bite.— Does the sinner believe? That is the only question in the matter of being justified and pardoned.— Looking to Moses, or looking to the tabernacle, or looking even to the pole on which the serpent hung, or looking to anything except the brazen serpent, the bitten Israelite would not have been cured. Just so, looking to anything but Christ crucified, however holy the object looked at may be, the sinner cannot be saved. The expression, "should not perish, but have eternal life," is peculiarly strong. As the Israelite who looked to the brazen serpent not only did not die of his wounds, but recovered complete health, so the sinner who looks to Jesus not only escapes hell and condemnation, but has a seed of eternal life at once put in his heart, receives a complete title to an eternal life of glory and blessedness in heaven, and enters into that life after death.— The salvation of the Gospel is exceedingly full. It is not merely being pardoned. It is being counted completely righteous, and made a citizen of heaven. It is not merely an escape from hell, but the reception of a title to heaven. It has been well remarked, that the Old Testament generally promised only "length of days," but the Gospel promises "everlasting life." v16.—[For God so loved the world, &c.] Our Lord, in this verse, shows Nicodemus another "heavenly thing."— Nicodemus probably thought, like many Jews, that God's purposes of mercy were entirely confined to His chosen people Israel, and that when Messiah appeared, He would appear only for the special benefit of the Jewish nation. Our Lord here declares to him that God loves all the world without any exception, that the Messiah, the only begotten Son of God, is the Father's gift to the whole family of Adam, and that every one, whether Jew or Gentile, who believes on Him for salvation, may have eternal life.— A more startling declaration to the ears of a rigid Pharisee it is impossible to conceive! A more wonderful verse is not to be found in the Bible! That God should love such a wicked world as this and not hate it,— that He should love it so as to provide salvation— that in order to provide salvation He should give, not an angel, or any created being, but such a priceless gift as His only begotten Son,— that this great salvation should be freely offered to every one that believeth,— all, all this is wonderful indeed! This was indeed a "heavenly thing." The words, "God loved the world," have received two very different interpretations. The importance of the subject in the present day makes it desirable to state both views fully. Some think, as Hutcheson, Lampe, and Gill, that the "world" here means God's elect out of every nation, whether Jews or Gentiles, and that the "love" with which God is said to love them is that eternal love with which the elect were loved before creation began, and by which their calling, justification, preservation and final salvation are completely secured.— This view, though supported by many and great divines, does not appear to me to be our Lord's meaning. For one thing, it seems to me a violent straining of language to confine the word "world" to the elect. "The world" is undoubtedly a name sometimes given to the "wicked" exclusively. But I cannot see that it is a name ever given to the saints.— For another thing, to interpret the word "world" of the elect only is to ignore the distinction which, to my eyes, is plainly drawn in the text between the whole of mankind and those out of mankind who "believe." If the "world" means only the believing portion of mankind, it would have been quite enough to say, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that the world should not perish." But our Lord does not say so. He says, "that whosoever believeth, i. e., that whosoever out of the world believeth."— Lastly, to confine God's love to the elect, is taking a harsh and narrow view of God's character, and fairly lays Christianity open to the modern charges brought against it as cruel and unjust to the ungodly. If God takes no thought for any but his elect, and cares for none beside, how shall God judge the world?— I believe in the electing love of God the Father as strongly as any one. I regard the special love with which God loves the sheep whom He has given to Christ from all eternity, as a most blessed and comfortable truth, and one most cheering and profitable to believers. I only say, that it is not the truth of this text. The true view of the words, "God loved the world," I believe to be this. The "world" means the whole race of mankind, both saints and sinners, without any exception. The word, in my opinion, is so used in John 1:10, John 1:29; John 6:33, John 6:51; John 8:12; Romans 3:19; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:14. The "love" spoken of is that love of pity and compassion with which God regards all His creatures, and specially regards mankind. It is the same feeling of "love" which appears in Psalms 145:9; Ezekiel 33:11; John 6:32; Titus 3:4; 1 John 4:10; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4. It is a love unquestionably distinct and separate from the special love with which God regards His saints. It is a love of pity and not of approbation or complaisance. But it is not the less a real love. It is a love which clears God of injustice in judging the world. I am quite familiar with the objections commonly brought against the theory I have just propounded. I find no weight in them, and am not careful to answer them. Those who confine God's love exclusively to the elect appear to me to take a narrow and contracted view of God's character and attributes. They refuse to God that attribute of compassion with which even an earthly father can regard a profligate son, and can offer to him pardon, even though his compassion is despised and his offers refused. I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system. The following quotation from one whom for convenience sake I must call a thorough Calvinist, I mean Bishop Davenant, will show that the view I advocate is not new. "The general love of God toward mankind is so clearly testified in Holy Scripture, and so demonstrated by the manifold effects of God's goodness and mercy extended to every particular man in this world, that to doubt thereof were infidelity, and to deny it plain blasphemy."—Davenant's Answer to Hoard, p. 1. "God hateth nothing which Himself created. And yet it is most true that He hateth sin in any creature, and hateth the creature infected with sin, in such manner as hatred may be attributed to God. But for all this He so generally loved mankind, fallen in Adam, that He hath given His only begotten Son, that what sinner soever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. And this everlasting life is so provided for man by God, that no decrees of His can bring any man thither without faith and repentance; and no decrees of His can keep any man out who repenteth and believeth. As for the measure of God's love exhibited in the external effect unto man, it must not be denied that God poureth out His grace more abundantly on some men than on others, and worketh more powerfully and effectually in the hearts of some men than of others, and that out of His alone will and pleasure. But yet, when this more special love is not extended, His less special love is not restrained to outward and temporal mercies, but reacheth to internal and spiritual blessings, even such as will bring men to an eternal blessedness, if their voluntary wickedness hinders not."—Davenant's Answer to Hoard, p. 469. "No divine of the Reformed Church, of sound judgment, will deny a general intention or appointment concerning the salvation of all men individually by the death of Christ, on the condition if they should believe. For the intention or appointment of God is general, and is plainly revealed in holy Scripture, although the absolute and not to be frustrated intention of God concerning the gift of faith and eternal life to some persons, is special, and limited to the elect alone. So I have maintained and do maintain."—Davenant's Opinion on the Gallican Controversy. Calvin observes on this text, "Christ brought life, because the heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." Again he says, "Christ employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite indiscriminately all to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such also is the import of the term world. Though there is nothing in the world that is worthy of God's favour, yet He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ." The same view of God's "love" and the "world," in this text, is taken by Brentius, Bucer, Calovius, Glassius, Chemnitius, Musculus; Bullinger, Bengel, Nifanius, Dyke, Scott, Henry, and Manton. The little word "so," in this verse, has called forth many remarks, on account of its depth of meaning. It doubtless signifies "so greatly, so much, so dearly." Bishop Sanderson, quoted by Ford, observes, "How much that 'so' containeth, no tongue or wit of man can reach: nothing expresseth it better to the life, than the work itself doth." [That he gave his only begotten Son.] The gift of Christ, be it here noted, is the result of God's love to the world, and not the cause. To say that God loves us because Christ died for us, is wretched theology indeed. But to say that Christ came into the world in consequence of the love of God, is scriptural truth. The expression "he gave," is a remarkable one. Christ is God the Father's gift to a lost and sinful world. He was given generally to be the Saviour, the Redeemer, the Friend of sinners,— to make an atonement sufficient for all,— and to provide a redemption large enough for all. To effect this, the Father freely gave Him up to be despised, rejected, mocked, crucified, and counted guilty and accursed for our sakes. It is written that He was "delivered for our offences," and that "God spared Him not, but delivered him up for us all." (Romans 4:25; Romans 8:32.) Christ is the "gift of God," spoken of to the Samaritan woman, (John 4:10,) and the "unspeakable gift" spoken of by Paul. (2 Corinthians 9:15.) He Himself says to the wicked Jews, "My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven." (John 6:32.) This last text, be it noted, was one with which Erskine silenced the General Assembly in Scotland, when he was accused of offering Christ too freely to sinners. It should be observed that our Lord calls Himself "the only begotten Son of God" in this verse. In the verse but one before this, He called Himself "the Son of man." Both the names were used in order to impress upon the mind of Nicodemus the two natures of Messiah. He was not only the Son of man but the Son of God. But it is striking to remark that precisely the same words are used in both places about faith in Christ. If we would be saved, we must believe in Him both as the Son of man and the Son of God. [That whosoever believeth, &c....life.] These words are exactly the same as those in the preceding verse. Why our translators should have rendered the same Greek word by "everlasting" in one place, and "eternal" in the other, it is hard to say. In Matthew 25:46, they did just the same. The repetition of this glorious saying, "whosoever believeth," is very instructive. For one thing it serves to show that mighty and broad as is the love of God, it will prove useless to every one who does not believe in Christ. God loves all the world, but God will save none in the world who refuse to believe in His only begotten Son.— For another thing it shows us the great point to which every Christian should direct his attention. He must see to it that he believes on Christ. It is mere waste of time to be constantly asking ourselves whether God loves us and whether Christ died for us; and it argues gross ignorance of Scripture to trouble ourselves with such questions. The Bible never tells men to look at these questions, but commands them to believe. Salvation, it always teaches, does not turn on the point, "did Christ die for me?" but on the point, "do I believe on Christ?" If men do not "have eternal life," it is never because God did not love them, or because Christ was not given for them, but because they do not believe on Christ. In leaving this verse, I may remark, that the idea maintained by Erasmus, Olshausen, Wetstein, Rosenmuller, and others, that it does not contain our Lord's words, and that from this verse down to the 21st we have John's comments or observations, appears to me utterly destitute of foundation, and unsupported by a single argument worth noticing. That our Lord would not have used the third person in speaking of Himself is no argument. We find Him frequently speaking of Himself in the third person. See, for instance, John 5:19-27. There is literally nothing to be gained by adopting the theory, while it contradicts the common belief of nearly all believers in every age of the world. Flacius observes that this verse and the two preceding ones comprise all the causes of justification: 1. The remote and efficient cause, God's love. 2. The approximate efficient cause, the gift of God's Son 3:1-11. The material cause, Christ's exaltation on the cross. 4. The instrumental cause, faith. 5. The final cause, eternal life. v17.—[God sent not....condemn....world.] In this verse our Lord shows Nicodemus another "heavenly thing." He shows him the main object of Messiah coming into the world. It was not to judge men, but to die for them; not to condemn, but to save. I have a strong impression that when our Lord spoke these words, He had in view the prophecy of David about Messiah bruising the nations with a rod of iron, and Daniel's prophecy about the judgment, where he speaks of the thrones being cast down, and the Ancient of days judging the world. (Psalms 2:6-9; Daniel 7:9-22.) I think that Nicodemus, like most Jews, was filled with the expectation that when Messiah came He would come with power and great glory, and judge all men. Our Lord corrects this notion in this verse. He declares that Messiah's first advent was not to judge but to save people from their sins. He says in another place, "I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." (John 12:47.) The Greek word for judging and condemning, it must be remembered, is one and the same. Judgment and the condemnation of the ungodly, our Lord would have us know, are not the work of the first advent, but of the second. The special work of the first advent was to seek and save that which was lost. [That....world....through Him....saved.] This sentence must clearly be interpreted with some qualification. It would contradict other plain texts of Scripture, if we took it to mean, "God sent His Son into the world, that all the world might finally be saved through Him, and none be lost." In fact, our Lord Himself declares in the very next verse, "that he that believeth not is condemned already." The meaning of the sentence evidently is, that "all the world might have a door of salvation opened through Christ,— that salvation might be provided for all the world,— and that so any one in the world believing on Christ, might be saved." In this view it is like the expression of John, "The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." (1 John 4:14.) The expression, "God hath sent," in this verse, ought not to be overlooked. It is very frequently applied, in John's Gospel, to our Lord. At least thirty-eight times we find Him speaking of Himself as Him "whom God hath sent." It is probably from this expression that Paul derives the peculiar name which he gives to our Lord, "The apostle of our profession." (Hebrews 3:1.) The apostle means simply, "The sent one." The readiness of natural man everywhere to regard Christ as a Judge much more than as a Saviour, is a curious fact. The whole system of the Roman Catholic Church is full of the idea. People are taught to be afraid of Christ, and to flee to Mary! Ignorant Protestants are not much better. They often regard Christ as a kind of Judge, whose demands they will have to satisfy at the last day, much more than as a present personal Saviour and Friend. Our Lord seems to foresee this error, and to correct it in the words of this text. Calvin observes on this verse, "Whenever our sins press us,— whenever Satan would drive us to despair,— we ought to hold out this shield, that God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because He has appointed His Son to be the salvation of the world." v18.—[He that believeth on Him....is not condemned.] In this verse our Lord shows Nicodemus another "heavenly thing." He declares the privileges of believing, and the peril of not believing in the Son of God. Nicodemus had addressed Him as a "teacher come from God." He would have Nicodemus know that He was that high and holy One, whom to believe on was life eternal, and whom not to believe on was everlasting destruction. Life or death was before men. If they believed and received Him as the Messiah, they would be saved. If they believed not, they would die in their sins. The expression, "He that believeth," deserves special notice. It is the third time that our Lord speaks of "believing" on Himself, and the consequence of believing, within four verses. It shows the immense importance of faith in the sinner's justification. It is that one thing, without which eternal life cannot be had.— It shows the amazing graciousness of the Gospel, and its admirable suitableness to the wants of human nature.— A man may have been the worst of sinners, but if he will only "believe," he is at once pardoned. Last, but not least, it shows the need of clear, distinct views of the nature of saving faith, and the importance of keeping it entirely distinct from works of any kind, in the matter of justification. Faith, and faith only, gives an interest in Christ. The old sentence of Luther's days is perfectly true,— paradoxical and startling as it may sound, "The faith which justifies is not the faith which includes charity, but the faith which lays hold on Christ." The expression, "is not condemned," is equivalent to saying, "he is pardoned, acquitted, justified, cleared from all guilt, delivered from the curse of a broken law, no longer counted a sinner, but reckoned perfectly righteous in the sight of God." The presentness of the phrase, if one may coin a word, should be specially noticed. It is not said, that the believer "shall not be condemned at the last day," but that "he is not condemned." The very moment a sinner believes on Christ, his iniquities are taken away, and he is counted righteous. "All that believe are justified from all things." (Acts 13:39.) [He....believeth not....condemned already.] This sentence means that the man who refuses to believe on Christ is in a state of condemnation before God, even while he lives. The curse of a broken law, which we all deserve, is upon him. His sins are upon his head. He is reckoned guilty and dead before God, and there is but a step between him and hell. Faith takes all a man's sins away. Unbelief keeps them all on him. Through faith a man is made an heir of heaven, though kept outside till he dies. Through unbelief a man is already a subject of the devil, though not yet entirely in his power, and within hell. The moment a man believes, all charges are completely wiped away from his name. So long as a man does not believe, his sins cover him over, and make him abominable before God, and the just wrath of God abides upon him. Melancthon remarks that the sentence of God's condemnation, which was passed at the beginning, "Thou shalt surely die," remains in full force and unrepealed, against every one who does not believe on Christ. No new condemnation is needful. Every man or woman who does not believe, is under the curse, and condemned already. [Because....not believed....name....Son of God.] This sentence is justly thought to prove that no sin is so great, and so damning and ruinous to the soul as unbelief. In one sense it is the only unpardonable sin. All other sins may be forgiven, however many and great, and a man may stand complete before God. But if a man will not believe on Christ, there is no hope for him; and if he persists in his unbelief he cannot be saved. Nothing is so provoking and offensive to God as to refuse the glorious salvation He has provided at so mighty a cost, by the death of His only begotten Son. Nothing is so suicidal on the part of man as to turn away from the only remedy which can heal his soul. Other sins may be scarlet, filthy, and abominable. But not to believe on Christ is to bar the door in our own way, and to cut off ourselves entirely from heaven. It Has been truly remarked that it was a greater sin in Judas Iscariot not to believe on Christ for pardon, after he had betrayed Him, than to betray Him into the hands of his enemies. To betray Him no doubt was an act of enormous covetousness, wickedness, and ingratitude. But not to seek Him afterwards by faith for pardon, was to disbelieve His mercy, love, and power to save. The expression "the name," as the object of faith, is explained in John 1:12. Here, as frequently, it stands for the attributes, character, and office of the Son of God. Luther, quoted by Brown, remarks, "Henceforward, he who is condemned must not complain of Adam, and his inborn sin. The seed of the woman, promised by God to bruise the head of the serpent, is now come and has atoned for sin, and taken away condemnation. But he must cry out against himself for not having accepted and believed in the Christ, the devil's head-bruiser and sin-strangler. If I do not believe the same, sin and condemnation must continue." v19.—[This is the condemnation, &c.] In this verse our Lord shows Nicodemus one more "heavenly thing." He unfolds to him the true cause of the ruin of those who are lost. Primarily, I think, our Lord had in view the unbelieving Jews of His own day, and the real reason of their rejection of Himself. It was not that there was any want of evidence of His Messiahship. They had evidence enough and to spare. The real reason was that they had no mind to give up their sins.— Secondarily, I think, our Lord had in view the future history of all Christians, and the true cause of the ruin of all who are not saved in every age. It is not because there is any want of light to guide men to heaven. It is not because God is wanting in love and unwilling to save. The real reason is that men in every age love their own sins, and will not come to Christ that they may be delivered from them. The expression "this is the condemnation," is evidently very elliptical, and the full meaning must be supplied. It is probably equivalent to saying "this is the cause of the condemnation, this is the true account of it." The following elliptical expressions are somewhat similar, and all found in John's 1st Epistle. "This is the promise," "this is the love of God," "this is the victory," "this is the confidence." (1 John 2:25; 1 John 5:4; 1 John 5:14.) [That light is come into the world.] It is a question in this sentence whether "light" means Christ Himself, or the light of Christ's Gospel. I am inclined to think that our Lord meant to include both ideas. He has come as a light into the world, and the Gospel that He has brought with Him, is, like its Author, a strong contrast to the ignorance and wickedness of the earth. [Men loved darkness rather than light.] The darkness in this sentence means moral darkness and mental darkness, sin, ignorance, superstition, and irreligion. Men cannot come to Christ and receive His Gospel without parting with all this, and they love it too well to part with it. [Because their deeds were evil.] This sentence means that their habits of life were wicked, and any doctrine which necessitated a change of these habits they naturally hated. Throughout this verse I am inclined to think that the past tense "loved," ought to be taken in a present sense, (proleptically, to use a grammarian's phrase,) as is frequently the case in the New Testament. See John 15:8, and Romans 8:30. The meaning will then be, "men have loved, do love, and always will love darkness, in consequence of the corruption of human nature, as long as the world stands." The sentence then becomes a solemn description of a state of things which was not only to be seen among the Jews, while our Lord was on earth, but would be seen everywhere to the end of time. The verse is one which deserves special notice, because of the deep mystery it unfolds. It tells us the true reason why men miss heaven and are lost in hell. The origin of evil we are not told. The reason why evil men are lost, we are told plainly. There is not a word about any decree of God predestinating men to destruction. There is not a syllable about anything deficient or wanting either in God's love, or in Christ's atonement. On the contrary our Lord tells us that "light has come into the world," that God has revealed enough of the way of salvation to make men inexcusable if they are not saved. But the real account of the matter is that men have naturally no will or inclination to use the light. They love their own dark and corrupt ways more than the ways which God proposes to them. They therefore reap the fruit of their own ways, and will have at last what they loved. They loved darkness and they will be cast into outer darkness. They did not like the light and so they will be shut out from light eternally. In short, lost souls will be what they willed to be, and will have what they loved. The words, "because their deeds were evil," are very instructive. They teach us that where men have no love to Christ and His Gospel and will not receive them, their lives and their works will prove at last to have been evil. Their habits of life may not be gross and immoral. They may be even comparatively decent and pure. But the last day will prove them to have been in reality "evil." Pride of intellect, or selfishness, or love of man's applause, or dislike to submission of will, or self-righteousness, or some other false principle will be found to have run through all their conduct. In one way or another, when men refuse to come to Christ, their deeds will always prove to be "evil." Rejection of the Gospel will always be found to be connected with some moral obliquity. When Christ is refused we may be quite sure that there is something or other in life, or heart, which is not right. If a man does not love light his "deeds are evil." Human eyes may not detect the flaw; but the eyes of an all-seeing God do. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/ryle-expository-thoughts/ ON one account, this passage deserves the special attention of all devout readers of the Bible. It contains the last testimony of John the Baptist concerning our Lord Jesus Christ. That faithful man of God was the same at the end of his ministry that he was at the beginning— the same in his views of self,— the same in his views of Christ. Happy is that church whose ministers are as steady, bold, and constant to one thing, as John the Baptist! We have, firstly, in these verses, a humbling example of the petty jealousies and party-spirit which may exist among professors of religion. We are told, that the disciples of John the Baptist were offended, because the ministry of Jesus began to attract more attention than that of their master. "They came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with you beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." The spirit exhibited in this complaint, is unhappily too common in the Churches of Christ. The succession of these complainers has never failed. There are never wanting religious professors who care far more for the increase of their own party, than for the increase of true Christianity; and who cannot rejoice in the spread of religion, if it spreads anywhere except within their own pale. There is a generation which can see no good doing except in the ranks of its own congregations; and which seems ready to shut men out of heaven, if they will not enter therein under its banner. The true Christian must watch and pray against the spirit here manifested by John's disciples. It is very insidious, very contagious, and very injurious to the cause of religion. Nothing so defiles Christianity and gives the enemies of truth such occasion to blaspheme, as jealousy and party-spirit among Christians. Wherever there is real grace, we should be ready and willing to acknowledge it, even though it may be outside our own pale. We should strive to say with the apostle, "If Christ be preached, I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." (Philippians 1:18.) If good is done, we ought to be thankful, though it even may not be done in what we think the best way. If souls are saved, we ought to be glad, whatever be the means that God may think fit to employ. We have, secondly, in these verses, a splendid pattern of true and godly humility. We see in John the Baptist a very different spirit from that displayed by his disciples. He begins by laying down the great principle, that acceptance with man is a special gift of God; and that we must therefore not presume to find fault, when others have more acceptance than ourselves. "A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven." He goes on to remind his followers of his repeated declaration, that one greater than himself was coming;— "I said, I am not the Christ." He tells them that his office compared to that of Christ, is that of the bridegroom's friend, compared to the bridegroom. And finally, he solemnly affirms, that Christ must and will become greater and greater, and that he himself must become less and less important, until, like a star eclipsed by the rising sun, he has completely disappeared. A frame of mind like this, is the highest degree of grace to which mortal man can attain. The greatest saint in the sight of God, is the man who is most thoroughly "clothed with humility." (1 Peter 5:5.) Would we know the prime secret of being men of the stamp of Abraham, and Moses, and Job, and David, and Daniel, and Paul, and John the Baptist? They were all eminently humble men. Living at different ages, and enjoying very different degrees of light, in this matter at least they were all agreed. In themselves they saw nothing but sin and weakness. To God they gave all the praise of what they were. Let us walk in their steps. Let us covet earnestly the best gifts; but above all, let us covet humility. The way to true honor is to be humble. No man ever was so praised by Christ, as the very man who says here, "I must decrease," the humble John the Baptist. We have, thirdly, in these verses, an instructive declaration of Christ's honor and dignity. John the Baptist teaches his disciples once more, the true greatness of the Person whose growing popularity offended them. Once more, and perhaps for the last time, he proclaims Him as one worthy of all honor and praise. He uses one striking expression after another, to convey a correct idea of the majesty of Christ. He speaks of Him as "the bridegroom" of the Church,— as "him that cometh from above,"— as "him whom God has sent,"— as "him to whom the Spirit is given without measure,"— as Him "whom the Father loves," and into "whose hands all things are given,"— whom to believe in is life everlasting, and whom to reject is eternal ruin. Each of these phrases is full of deep meaning, and would supply matter for a long sermon. All show the depth and height of John's spiritual attainments. More honorable things are nowhere written concerning Jesus, than these verses recorded as spoken by John the Baptist. Let us endeavor in life and death, to hold the same views of the Lord Jesus, to which John here gives expression. We can never make too much of Christ. Our thoughts about the Church, the ministry, and the sacraments, may easily become too high and extravagant. We can never have too high thoughts about Christ, can never love Him too much, trust Him too implicitly, lay too much weight upon Him, and speak too highly in His praise. He is worthy of all the honor that we can give Him. He will be all in heaven. Let us see to it, that He is all in our hearts on earth. We have, lastly, in these verses, a broad assertion of the nearness and presentness of the salvation of true Christians. John the Baptist declares, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." He is not intended to look forward with a sick heart to a far distant privilege. He "hath" everlasting life as soon as he believes. Pardon, peace, and a complete title to Heaven, are an immediate possession. They become a believer's own, from the very moment he puts faith in Christ. They will not be more completely his own, if he lives to the age of Methuselah. The truth before us, is one of the most glorious privileges of the Gospel. There are no works to be done, no conditions to be fulfilled, no price to be paid, no wearing years of probation to be passed, before a sinner can be accepted with God. Let him only believe on Christ, and he is at once forgiven. Salvation is close to the chief of sinners. Let him only repent and believe, and this day it is his own. By Christ all that believe are at once justified from all things. Let us leave the whole passage with one grave and heart-searching thought. If faith in Christ brings with it present and immediate privileges, to remain unbelieving is to be in a state of tremendous peril. If heaven is very near to the believer, hell must be very near to the unbeliever. The greater the mercy that the Lord Jesus offers, the greater will be the guilt of those who neglect and reject it. "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." ================== Notes— v22.—[Came Jesus...into...land of Judζa.] Some have thought, from this expression, that the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus did not take place in Jerusalem or Judζa, but in Galilee. Others have thought that a long interval must be supposed to have elapsed between the conversation and the events which are here narrated.— I can agree with neither view.— I believe the true explanation is, that "the land" here spoken of means the rural part or territory of Judζa, in contradistinction to the capital town of the territory, Jerusalem. The meaning will then be, that Jesus left the city and went into the country districts. The expression, "Thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judζa," is similar. (Matthew 2:6.) [He tarried.] The Greek word so rendered signifies a lengthened stay. It is translated in other places "continued" or "abode." It is note-worthy that many of the events of our Lord's ministry in Jerusalem and the surrounding district, are evidently not recorded in any of the Gospels. [And baptized.] That our Lord did not baptize with His own hands, but left the ordinance to be administered by His disciples, as work inferior to that of preaching, we may learn from the next chapter. (John 4:2.) Lightfoot observes that "The administration of Christ's ordinances by his ministers, according to His institution, is as His own work. The disciples' baptizing is called His baptizing." The questions have often been raised, "In what name was this baptism administered?" "Was it a baptism that needed to be repeated after the day of Pentecost?"— The most probable answer to the first question is, that it was a baptism in the name of Jesus, upon profession of belief that he was the Messiah. The most probable answer to the second question is, that it was certainly not a baptism that required repetition. To suppose that a baptism, administered by our Lord's disciples, under our Lord's own eye, and by our Lord's own command, was not as effectual and profitable an ordinance as any baptism that was ever afterwards administered, is a most improbable supposition. It may be remarked here, that there is no ground for the common idea, that it is absolutely necessary that baptism should be administered in the name of the Trinity, in order to be a valid and Christian baptism. In three cases recorded in the Acts we are expressly told that baptism was administered in the name of Jesus Christ, and no mention is made of all three Persons in the Trinity. (See Acts 2:38; Acts 8:37; Acts 10:48.) In all these cases, however, it will be remembered, baptism in the name of Christ was practically baptism in the name of the Trinity. It was confession of faith in Him whom the Father sent, and who was the giver of the Holy Ghost. As a general rule in the Church of Christ, no doubt, baptism ought to be in the name of the Trinity. (Matthew 28:19.) But that our Lord's disciples, in the place now before us, did not baptize in the name of the Trinity is pretty certain, and that baptism in the name of Jesus is valid Christian baptism seems clear from the places referred to in Acts. Hutcheson remarks, that "Christ's own bodily presence, filled with the Spirit without measure, did not take away the use of external ordinances," such as baptism. The Quaker's opinion, that we need no external ordinances under the Gospel, is hard to reconcile with such a text as this. v23.—[John also was baptizing.] We can hardly doubt that John baptized all who came to him, at this period of his ministry, in the name of Jesus, upon confession of faith that Jesus was the Messiah. It seems most improbable that after publicly pointing out Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God, and the promised Saviour, he would be content to baptize with the baptism of repentance, which he had administered before Christ appeared. In short, John's baptism at this period, and the baptism administered by Christ's disciples, must have been precisely the same. I may remark here, that the opinion maintained by Roman Catholics, and those who agree with them, that there was an essential difference between John's baptism and Christian baptism, seems to me entirely destitute of foundation. I agree with Brentius, Lightfoot, and most of the Protestant commentators, that John's baptism and Christian baptism differed only in circumstantials, but were the same in substance, and that a person baptized by John the Baptist had no need to be re-baptized after the day of Pentecost.— Unless we take this view, I cannot see any evidence that Peter, and Andrew, and James, and John ever received Christian baptism at all. There is not a single word in the Gospel to show that they were ever baptized again after leaving John the Baptist's company, and becoming Christ's disciples. Moreover, we are expressly told that "Jesus himself baptized not." (John 4:2.) The only baptism that the first apostles received appears to have been John the Baptist's baptism. This fact seems to me to prove irresistibly, that John's baptism was essentially of equal value with Christian baptism, and that a person baptized by John had no need to be baptized again. The well-known passage in Acts, (Acts 19:1-6,) which is always quoted in opposition to the view I maintain, does not appear to me at all conclusive and decisive upon the question now before us.— For one thing, the persons described in that passage as having only been baptized with John's baptism, seem to have been ignorant of the first principles of Christianity. They said, "we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." That expression shows pretty clearly that they had not been hearers of John the Baptist, who frequently spoke of the Holy Ghost, (Matthew 3:11,) and had not been baptized by John himself.— It is most probable that they were inhabitants of Ephesus, who had only heard Apollos preaching, and knew even less than their teacher. Whether Paul might not think it needful to administer baptism to such ignorant disciples as these, who could give no intelligent account of Christianity, is a question I would not undertake to decide.— But beside this, it is by no means certain that these disciples were really baptized again with water at all. Brentius holds that the words, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," mean the baptism of the Spirit. Streso maintains that the words are the concluding sentence of Paul's address to these ignorant men. I cannot say that either of these last views is altogether satisfactory. All I say is, that I would infinitely rather adopt either of them, than hold such a monstrous opinion as the Romish one, that John's baptism was not Christian baptism at all, and needed to be repeated. The difficulties in the way of this last view appear to me far greater than the difficulties in the way of the one which I support. To say that the first five apostles never received any Christian baptism at all is really preposterous. To assert that Christ Himself baptized them is to assert what the Bible never even hints at. There is not a shadow of proof that Jesus ever baptized a single person. I see no escape from the conclusion that Andrew, John, Peter, Philip, and Nathanael either received John's baptism or no baptism at all. Whatever men may think about John's baptism before the time when our Lord appeared, they will never prove that the baptism he administered in the text before us was not Christian baptism. To suppose that John would go on administering an ordinance which he knew was imperfect, while Christian baptism was being administered by Christ's disciples a few miles off, is simply absurd. [Ζnon near to Salim.] It is not certainly known where this place was. The probability is that it was somewhere in Judζa. In the list of the cities given to the tribe of Juda, we find together "Shilhim and Ain." (Joshua 15:32.) It is very possible that these two may be the "Ζnon and Salim" now before us. The changes which proper names undergo in passing from one language to another, every one knows, are very great. [Because there was much water.] It is frequently assumed from this expression, that John's baptism was immersion and not sprinkling, and that on this account a great supply of water was absolutely needful. It may perhaps have been so. The point is one of no importance. That immersion, however, is necessary to the validity of baptism, and that sprinkling alone is not sufficient, are points that can never be demonstrated from Scripture. So long as water is used, it seems to be left a matter of indifference whether the person baptized is dipped or sprinkled. I should find it very hard to believe that the three thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost, or the jailer and his family, baptized at midnight in the Philippian prison, were all immersed. The Church of England wisely allows either mode of applying water to be used. To suppose that dipping is forbidden to English Churchmen is mere ignorance. [They came...baptized.] This is an elliptical sentence. We are not told who are meant by "they." It is like "men," in Matthew 5:15, and means generally "people." v24.—[John...not yet...prison.] John's diligence in his Master's work is here pointed out. He doubtless knew that his ministry was fulfilled when Christ appeared, and that the time of his own departure, and violent death under Herod's hands, was at hand. Yet he worked on to the very last. "Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when he cometh shall find so doing." (Matthew 24:46.) Theophylact thinks that John's early death was permitted in God's providence, in order to prevent any distraction in people's minds between him and Christ. v25.—[There arose...question...disciples...Jews...purifying.] The nature and particulars of this dispute must be left to conjecture. We can only form an idea of it from the context. It seems probable that it was a dispute between the unbelieving Jews and the disciples of John the Baptist, about the comparative value of the two baptisms which were being administered in Judea, viz., John's baptism and Christ's.— Which was the most purifying? Which was the most efficacious? Which was the most valuable of the two?— The Jews probably taunted John's disciples with the decline of their master's popularity. John's disciples, in ignorant zeal and heat for their master, probably contended that no new teacher's baptism could possibly be more purifying and valuable than their own master's. Wordsworth remarks upon the word "purifying," that John never uses the word "baptism," and never calls John the Baptist by his common surname "the Baptist." He says "John was no longer the Baptist, when John wrote. His baptism had passed away." Musculus, on this verse, observes the excessive readiness of men in every age to raise questions, controversies, and persecutions about ceremonies of merely human institution, while about faith, and hope, and love, and humility, and patience, and mortification of the flesh, and renewal of the Spirit, they exhibit no zeal at all. Controversies about baptism certainly appear to be among the oldest and most mischievous by which the Church has been plagued. v26.—[They came unto John, &c.] The language of the whole verse seems intended to show that John's disciples were jealous for their master's ministry, and that its declining popularity, in consequence of our Lord's appearance in Judζa as a public teacher, was a cause of annoyance to them. The verse is an instructive instance of that littleness and party spirit which are so painfully common among Christians when one minister's popularity is interfered with by the appearance of another. [He....with thee....thou barest witness.] This expression shows the publicity and notoriety of John's testimony to our Lord as the Messiah and the Lamb of God. It was testimony not borne privately in a corner, but in the hearing and full knowledge of all John's disciples. It would seem to have had very little effect on their minds. The words fell on their ears, but went no further. [Behold the same baptizeth.] This expression implies partly surprise and partly complaint. In any case it shows how little the bulk of John's disciples understood that Jesus was really the Messiah promised in the prophecies. If they had understood it, they would surely neither have been surprised nor annoyed at Him for baptizing and becoming popular. They would rather have expected it and rejoiced at it. It is one among many proofs that ministers may be loved by their hearers, and may tell them the truth faithfully, and yet be utterly unable to make their hearers understand or believe. Few are like Andrew, and "follow Jesus," when their minister says, "Behold the Lamb." The most are as though they did not hear at all. [All men come to him.] These words must doubtless be taken with qualification. The expression, "all men," only means, "many persons." We know as a fact that not all men came to Christ. Moreover, we must remember, that out of those who did come to Christ, very few believed. John says in his reply to his disciples, "No man receiveth his testimony."— Allowance must be made for the irritation under which John's disciples spoke. When men are vexed in spirit, by seeing their own party diminishing, they are often tempted to use exaggerated and incorrect expressions. Hutcheson remarks on this verse, that "Carnal emulation is an old and great sin in the Church, and even among professors; it being the foul fruit of a carnal temper to look on the success of one man's gifts as the debasing of another's who is faithful, and to count the thriving of God's work in one minister's hand the disgracing of another who is not so much flocked to." Cyril remarks on this verse, how admirably God can bring good out of apparent evil. Here, as in many cases, a carnal and unkind saying of John's disciples gives occasion to John's admirable testimony about Christ. v27.—[John answered....a man can receive nothing, &c.] This sentence is the statement of a general truth in religion. Success, promotion, and growth of influence are gifts which God keeps entirely in His own hands. If one faithful minister's popularity wanes, while another's popularity and influence over men's hearts increase, the thing is of God, and we must submit to His appointment. (Psalms 75:6-7.) The application of the sentence is not to Christ, as Chrysostom thought, but to John the Baptist himself, as Augustine thought. They are meant to imply, "I cannot command continued success in my ministry. I can only receive what God gives me. If He thinks fit to give any one more acceptance with men than myself, I cannot prevent it, and have no right to complain. All success is of God. All that I have had, at any period of my ministry, has been received, and none deserved."— To apply the sentence to our Lord, seems to me an unsatisfactory interpretation, and derogatory to the dignity of Christ's ministry. Those who take this view, would probably prefer the marginal reading of the word "receive," and would render it, "No man can take to Himself anything." The sentence would then be like Paul's words to the Hebrews, "No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4.) But the translation, "receive," and the application to John the Baptist, appear to me more agreeable to the context, and the general spirit of John's reply. And although the word, a "man," ought not to have much stress laid upon it, I cannot help thinking that John uses it intentionally, in order to point to himself. "A mere man like me can receive nothing but what is given him from heaven." Lightfoot thinks that the Greek word rendered "receive" means "perceive," or "apprehend," and that John meant, "I see by this instance of yourselves, that no man can learn or understand anything, unless it be given him from heaven." He regards the sentence as John's rebuke to his disciples for incredulity and stupidity. I doubt myself whether the Greek word will bear the sense Lightfoot would put on it. The expression "from heaven," is equivalent to saying "from God." See Daniel 4:26; Luke 15:21. The whole verse is a most useful antidote to that jealousy which sometimes springs up in a minister's mind, when he sees a brother's ministry prospering more than his own. v28.—[Ye yourselves bear me witness....I said, &c.] John here reminds his disciples that he had repeatedly told them that he was not the Christ, and that he was only a forerunner sent before Him. They ought to have remembered this. If they had done so, they would not have been surprised at the rise and progress of Christ's ministry, but would rather have expected Him to outshine and surpass their master, as a matter of course. The verse is an instructive illustration of the forgetfulness of hearers. John's testimony to the dignity of Christ and His superiority to himself had been constantly repeated. But it had been all thrown away on his disciples, and when Christ began to receive greater honours than their master, and their own party began to grow smaller than that of Christ's disciples, they were offended. People soon forget what they do not like. v29.—[He that hath....bride....bridegroom, &c.] In this verse John the Baptist explains the relative positions occupied by himself and Christ by a familiar illustration. In tracing it out, it is of great importance not to press the points of resemblance too far. The illustration is one which specially requires to be handled with reverence, decency, and discretion. The "bride," in the verse, signifies the whole company of believers, the Lamb's wife. (Revelation 21:9.) The "bridegroom" is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The "friend of the bridegroom'' means John the Baptist, and all other faithful ministers of Christ. According to the marriage-customs of the Jews, there were certain persons called the bridegroom's friends, who were the means of communication between him and the bride before the marriage. Their duty was simply to set forward and promote the bridegroom's interests, and to remove all obstacles, as far as possible, to a speedy union of the parties. To accomplish this end and promote a thoroughly good understanding between the bride and bridegroom was their sole office. If they saw the bridegroom's suit prospering, and at last saw him received favourably and gladly by the bride, their end was accomplished and their work was done. To all this John the Baptist makes allusion in the verse now before us. He tells his disciples that his sole work was to set forward and promote a good understanding between Christ and men. If he saw that work prospering he was thankful and would rejoice, even though the result was that his own personal importance was diminished. He would have his disciples know that the growing popularity of Christ which offended them, was the very thing which he longed to see. He had no greater joy than to hear of the voice of Christ, the bridegroom, being listened to by believers, the bride. It was the very thing for which he had been preaching and ministering, His "joy was fulfilled." The word "hath" means "possesses as his own." Possession of the bride, as "bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh," is the peculiar prerogative of the bridegroom. (Genesis 2:23.) With this his friends have nothing to do. The expression "standeth," must probably not be pressed too far. Some think that it is taken from the position occupied by the bridegroom's friends on the day when the bridegroom was first formally introduced to the bride. They stood at a respectful distance and looked on. The expression certainly implies inferiority. Paul says that the Jewish priests "stand" daily ministering, but Christ ''sat down" on the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:12.) The expression "heareth the bridegroom's voice," like the last, is one that must not be pressed too far. It is a part of the drapery of the illustration. When report was brought to John the Baptist, that Jesus Christ's ministry was accepted by some, and that He found favour with many disciples, then was fulfilled what is here meant. John "heard the bridegroom's voice," and saw the successful progress of his mission, and seeing and hearing this "rejoiced." The whole verse is a most instructive picture of a true minister's work and character. He is a friend of Christ, and is ordained in order to promote a union between Christ and souls. (2 Corinthians 11:2.) He must rigidly adhere to that office, and must never take to himself that which does not belong to him. The minister who allows honour to be given to himself which only belongs to Jesus, and exalts his own office into that of a mediator and priest, is treacherously usurping a position which is not his but his Master's. The professing Christian who treats ministers as if they were priests and mediators, is dishonouring Jesus Christ, and basely giving that honour to the Bridegroom's friends which belongs exclusively to the Bridegroom Himself. The expression "this my joy is fulfilled," is a very instructive one for ministers. It shows that the truest happiness of a minister should consist in Christ's voice being heard by souls. "Now we live," says Paul, "if ye stand fast in the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 3:8,) &c. It deserves notice that when our Lord at another period of His ministry expressly speaks of Himself as "the bridegroom," in His reply to the disciples of John the Baptist (Matthew 9:15), He seems purposely to remind them of their master's words. Musculus, on this verse, observes, "The day of the Lord will declare what kind of zeal that is in our Popish bishops, who profess to be influenced by zeal for the love of the church, which is Christ's bride, against Christ's enemies. The day will declare whether a zeal which makes them shed innocent blood and persecute the members of Christ, is the zeal of true friends of the Bridegroom, or of treacherous suitors of the bride." v30.—[He must increase...I...decrease.] In this sentence John the Baptist tells his complaining disciples that it is right and proper and necessary that Christ should grow in dignity, and that he himself should be less thought of. He was only the servant; Christ was the Master. He was only the forerunner and ambassador, Christ was the King. He was only the morning star; Christ was the Sun. The idea implied appears to be that of the stars gradually fading away, as the sun rises, after the break of day. The stars do not really perish or really become less, but they pale and become invisible before the superior brightness of the great center of light. The sun does not really become larger, or really increase in brightness, but it becomes more fully visible, and occupies a position in which it more completely fills our vision. So was it with John the Baptist and Christ.— Every faithful minister ought to be like-minded with John. He must be content to be less thought of by his believing hearers, in proportion as they grow in knowledge and faith, and see Christ Himself more clearly. As churches decay and fall away, they think less of Christ and more of their ministers. As churches revive and receive spiritual life, they think less of ministers and more of Christ. To a decaying church the sun is going down, and the stars are beginning to appear. To a reviving church the stars are waning, and the sun appearing. v31.—[He...cometh...above...above all.] In this sentence John the Baptist asserts the infinite superiority of Christ over himself or any other child of Adam, whatever office he may fill. Christ is "from above." He is not merely man, but God. He came from heaven when He took our nature on Him, and was born. As God, He is as far above all His ministers and servants as the Creator is above the creature. He is "far above all principality, and power, and every name that can be named." He is "Head over all things to the church," and richly deserves all the honour, and dignity, and respect, and reverence that man can give. (Ephesians 1:21-22.) [He that is of the earth...earthly...speaketh...earth.] In this sentence John the Baptist expresses in strong language the comparative inferiority to Christ of himself or of any other minister. "All who like me," He seems to say, "are only men, mere dust and clay, descended from a father who was made out of the dust of the ground, are comparatively earthly. The weakness and feebleness of our origin pervade all our doings. By nature earthly, our works are earthly, and our speaking and preaching earthly."— In short, there will be a savour of humanity about the ministry of every one who is naturally engendered of the seed of Adam. The difficulty that some see in John the Baptist calling his own ministry "earthly," is quite needlessly raised. It is evident that he calls it so "comparatively." Compared to the teaching of Scribes and Pharisees it was not earthly but heavenly. Compared to the teaching of Him who came from heaven it was earthly. A candle compared to darkness is light. But the same candle compared to the sun is a poor dim spark. [He that cometh...heaven...above all.] This sentence is only a repetition of the beginning of the verse. It is a second assertion of Christ's greatness and superiority over any mere man, in order to impress the matter more deeply on those who heard it. "Mark what I tell you," John the Baptist seems to say to his disciples, "I repeat emphatically that Christ having come from heaven, and being by nature God as well as man, is far above me and all other ministers, who are only men and nothing more." Some think, as Erasmus, Bengel, Wetstein, Olshausen, and Tholuck, that John the Baptist's words end with the verse preceding the one now before us, and that the words "He that cometh from above" begin the comment of John the Evangelist. I cannot for a moment admit this idea to be correct. I see no necessity for it. The whole passage runs on naturally, as the language of John the Baptist, to the end of the chapter. I see nothing unsuitable to John the Baptist in the concluding verses. They contain no truth which he was not likely to know. I see nothing gained by this idea. It throws no new light on the passage, and is an awkward break which would never occur to a simple reader of the Bible. v32.—[What...seen...heard...testifieth.] In this sentence John the Baptist shows the divinity of Christ, and His consequent superiority over himself in another point of view. He says that Christ bears witness to truths which he has "seen and heard." He is not like mere human ministers who only declare what they have been taught by the Holy Spirit, and inspired to communicate to others. As God, He declares with authority truths which He had seen, and heard, and known from all eternity with the Father. (John 5:19, John 5:30; John 8:38.) Some draw a distinction between what our Lord has seen and what He has heard. They think that what Christ has "seen," means what He has seen as one with God the Father in essence, and what Christ has "heard," means what He has heard as a distinct person in the Trinity.— Or else they think that what Christ has "seen," means what He has seen with the Father as God, and what He has "heard," what He has heard from the Father as man.— I doubt the correctness of either view. I think it more probable that the expression "seen and heard," is only a proverbial way of signifying perfect knowledge, such as a person has intuitively or at first hand. Euthymius thinks, that the expression "seen and heard," was purposely used, because of the weakness of John's hearers; and that such expressions were necessary, in order to give such hearers any adequate idea of Christ's divine nature. The word "testifieth" deserves notice, as an expression peculiarly characteristic of Christ's ministry. He told Pilate, "I came into the world that I should bear witness unto the truth." (John 18:37.) [And no man receiveth his testimony.] The expression "no man" in this sentence, must evidently, from the following verses, be taken with qualification. It must mean "very few." Andrew, Peter, Philip, and others, had received Christ's testimony. The sentence seems intended to rebuke the complaint uttered by John's disciples, "All men come unto him." John seems to say, "However many persons come to hear Jesus, you will yet see that very few believe on him. Great as he is, and deserving of far more reverence than myself, you have yet to learn, that even he is really believed on by few. The crowds who follow him are, unhappily, not true believers. The temporary popularity which attends his ministry, is as worthless as that which attended my own." Pearce thinks, that the Greek word rendered "and," would have been better translated, "and yet," as in John 7:19, and John 9:30. The notion of Augustine's, that "no man," in this sentence means, "none of the wicked," seems very untenable and unsatisfactory. v33.—[He hath received, &c.] In this verse John shows the great importance of receiving Christ's testimony. So far from being offended by the crowd which attended Christ's ministry, John's disciples should be thankful that so many heard Him, and that some few received His teaching into their hearts. [Hath set to his seal.] This expression is peculiar, and found nowhere else in the New Testament, in the same sense. Of course it does not mean any literal sealing. It only means, "hath formally declared his belief,— hath publicly professed his conviction,"— just as a man puts his seal to a document, as a testimony that he consents to its contents. In ancient days, when few comparatively could write, to affix a seal to a paper, was a more common mode of expressing assent to it, than to sign a name.— The sentence is equivalent to saying, "He that receives Christ's testimony, has set down his name as one who believes that God is true." [That God is true.] These words may be taken two ways. According to some they mean, "He that receives Christ, declares his belief, that it is the true God who has sent Christ; and that Christ is no impostor, but the Messiah, whom the true God of the Old Testament prophets promised to send."— According to others they mean, "He that receives Christ, declares his belief, that God is true to his word, and has kept the promise that he made to Adam, Abraham, and David." That the Greek word rendered "true," will bear this last meaning, seems proved by the expression, "Let God be true, but every man a liar." (Romans 3:4.) Either view makes good sense and good divinity; but on the whole, I prefer the second one. It seems to me strongly confirmed by the expression in John's 1st Epistle: "He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son." (1 John 5:10.) Some have thought that the sentence may mean, "He that receives Christ, declares his belief, that Christ is the true God," and that it is parallel to 1 John 5:20, "This is the true God.''— But I do not think the Greek words will admit of the interpretation. If they would, the Greek fathers would never have overlooked this text in writing against the Arians. Maldonatus seems to favour this opinion, and says that Cyril holds it. But it certainly does not clearly appear in Cyril's commentary on the place. v34.—[He whom God hath sent.] In this verse John the Baptist shows the dignity of Christ, and His superiority over all other teachers, by another striking declaration about Him. He begins by giving Him the well-known epithet which was peculiarly applied to Messiah, "He whom God hath sent, the sent One,— the One whom God has sent into the world according to promise." [Speaketh the words of God.] This sentence means that Christ's words were not the words of a mere man, like John himself or one of the prophets. They were nothing less than the words of God. He who heard them heard nothing less than God speaking. The unity of the Father and the Son is so close that he who hears the teaching of the Son hears the teaching of the Father also. (Compare John 7:16; John 5:19; John 14:10-11; John 8:28; John 12:49.) When John the Baptist spoke, he spoke merely human words, however true, and good, and scriptural. But when Christ spoke, He spoke divine words, even the words of God Himself. As Quesnel says, "He spoke by the Holy Ghost, who is His own Spirit, who inseparably dwelleth in Him, and by the possession of whose fulness He receives His unction and consecration." Theophylact remarks on this sentence and others like it in John's Gospel, that we must not suppose that Christ needed to be taught by God the Father what to speak, because whatever the Father knows the Son also knows, as consubstantial with Him. So also when we read of the Son being "sent," we must think of Him as a ray sent from the sun, which is not in reality separate from the sun, but a part of the sun itself. Some think that the expression, "speaketh the words of God," in this place, has special reference to the promise given to Moses about Messiah, "I will put my words in His mouth." (Deuteronomy 18:18.) [For God giveth not...Spirit by measure...Him.] The expression "by measure," in this sentence, means "partially,— scantily,— stintedly,— in small degree." It is the opposite to "fully,— completely,— in unmeasured abundance." Thus we read in Ezekiel's description of a time of scarcity at Jerusalem, "They shall drink water by measure." (Ezekiel 4:16.) The whole sentence is peculiar, and requires careful interpretation. The object of John the Baptist is to show once more the infinite superiority of the Lord Jesus over himself or any other man. To all others, even to the most eminent prophets and apostles, God gives the Holy Spirit "by measure." Their gifts and graces are both imperfect. As Paul says, they "know in part and prophesy in part." (1 Corinthians 13:9.) But with Him whom God hath sent, it is very different. To Him the Holy Ghost is given without measure, in infinite fulness and completeness. In His human nature the gifts and graces of the Spirit are present without the slightest shadow of imperfection. As man, Jesus of Nazareth was anointed with the Holy Ghost, and fitted for His office as our Priest, and Prophet, and King, in a way and degree never granted to any other man. (Acts 10:38.) All this is undoubtedly true, but it is not, in my opinion, the whole truth of the sentence. I believe that John the Baptist points not only to our Lord's human nature but to His divinity. I believe his meaning to be, "He whom God hath sent, is One far above prophets and ministers, to whom the Spirit is only given by measure. He is One who is Himself very God. In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. He is One who, as a Person in the Trinity, is eternally and ineffably united with God the Holy Spirit. From Him the Holy Spirit proceeds as well as from the Father, and is the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the Son. As God, it is impossible that He can be separated from the Holy Spirit. To Him therefore the Spirit is not given by measure, as if He were only a man. He is God as well as man, and as such He needeth not that the Spirit should be given to Him. He has the Spirit without measure, because in the divine essence, He, and the Spirit, and the Father, are One, and undivided." I am inclined to hold the view just stated, because of the verse which follows. The object of John the Baptist, in this last testimony to Christ, appears to be to lead his disciples step by step to the highest view of Messiah's dignity. He would have them recognize in Him One who was very God as well as very man. The view of the sentence before us which is commonly adopted, appears to me of an unsafe tendency. That the Spirit was given to our Lord as man, and given without measure, is doubtless true. But we must be very careful that we never forget a truth of no less importance. That truth is, that our Lord Jesus Christ never ceased to be God as well as man, and that as God He was never separate from the Spirit. As Henry says, "The Spirit dwelt in Him, not as in a vessel, but as in a fountain, as in a bottomless ocean." It deserves remark, that the concluding words of the verse, "unto Him," are not found in the original Greek. This has led some to maintain that the second clause of the verse is only a general statement, "God is not a God who gives the Spirit by measure." But all the best commentators, from Augustine downwards, hold the view of our translators, that it is Christ who is signified, and that "unto Him" ought to be supplied in any translation. Chemnitius thinks that this verse specially refers to Isaiah 11:2, where it is predicted that the seven-fold gifts of the Spirit shall rest on Messiah. v35.—[The Father loveth...Son...given all...hand.] There is something, at first sight, abrupt and elliptical in this verse. The full meaning of it, I believe to be as follows. "He whom God hath sent is One far above me or any other prophet. He is the eternal Son of God, whom the Father loved from all eternity, and into whose hands all things concerning man's salvation have been given and committed by an everlasting covenant. He is no mere man, as you, my disciples, ignorantly suppose. He is the Son, of whom it is written, 'Kiss the Son lest He be angry, and so ye perish from the way.' He is the Son to whom the Father has said, 'I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.' (Psalms 2:7-9.) Instead of being jealous of his present popularity, you should serve Him with fear, and rejoice before Him with trembling." The "love of the Father toward the Son," here spoken of, is a subject far too deep for man to fathom. It is an expression graciously accommodated to man's feeble understanding, and intended to signify that most intimate and ineffable union which exists between the First and Second Persons in the blessed Trinity, and the entire approbation and complacency with which the Father regards the work of redemption undertaken by the Son. It is that love to which our Lord refers in the words, "Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world," (John 17:24,) and which the Father expressly asserted at the beginning of the Son's earthly ministry, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:17.) When it says that "the Father hath given all things into the Son's hand," we must understand that mediatorial kingdom which in the eternal counsels of the Trinity has been appointed to Christ. By the terms of the everlasting covenant, the Father has given to the Son power over all flesh, to quicken whom He will— to justify, to sanctify, to keep, and to glorify His people,— to judge, and finally punish the wicked and unbelieving,— and at last to take to Himself a kingdom over all the world, and put down every enemy under His feet. These are the "all things," of which John speaks. Christ, he would have us know, has the keys of death and hell in His hand, and to Him alone men must go, if they want anything for their souls. Calvin observes on this verse, "The love here spoken of is that peculiar love of God, which beginning with the Son flows from Him to all the creatures. For that love, with which, embracing His Son, He embraces us also in Him, leads Him to communicate all His benefits to us by His hand." Quesnel remarks, "God loved the prophets as His servants, but He loves Christ as His only Son, and communicates Himself to Him in proportion to His love."— "The prophets had only particular commissions, limited to a certain time and certain purposes; but Christ has full power given Him as the general disposer of all His Father's works, the executor of His designs, the head of His Church, the universal High Priest of good things to come, the steward and disposer of all His graces." Chemnitius, on this verse, remarks the infinite wisdom and love of God in giving the management of our soul's affairs into Christ's hand. We are all naturally so weak and feeble, that if anything was left in our hands we should never be saved. We should lose all, even sooner than Adam did in Paradise. But Christ will take care of all committed to His charge, and our wisdom is to commit all things to Him, as Paul did. (2 Timothy 1:12.) v36.—[He that believeth...Son...hath...life.] In this verse John the Baptist concludes his testimony to Christ, by a solemn declaration of the unspeakable importance of believing on Him. Whether his disciples would receive it or not, he tells them that life or death, heaven or hell, all turned on believing in this Jesus who had "been with him beyond Jordan." The excellence of faith should be noted here. Like his divine Master, John teaches that "believing on the Son," is the principal thing in saving religion. Believing is the way to heaven, and not believing the way to hell. The "presentness" of the salvation which is in Christ should be here noted. Again, like his divine Master, John teaches that; a believer "hath" everlasting life. Pardon, peace, and a title to heaven are at once and immediately a man's possession, the very moment that he lays his sins on Jesus, and puts his trust in Him. [He that believeth not...not see life.] The Greek word here rendered "believeth not," is quite different from the one translated "believeth" at the beginning of the verse. It means something much stronger than "not trusting." It would be more literally rendered "He that does not obey, or is disobedient to." It is the same word so rendered in Romans 2:8; Romans 10:21; 1 Peter 2:8; 1 Peter 3:1; 1 Peter 3:20. The expression, "shall not see life," must of course mean, "shall not see life, if he continues impenitent and unbelieving, and dies in that state." The phrase "to see life," most probably means "to taste, enter, enjoy, possess life," and must not be literally interpreted as seeing either with bodily or mental eyes. [The wrath of God abideth on him.] This concluding sentence of John the Baptist's testimony, is again very like his Master's teaching, "He that believeth not is condemned already." The meaning of the sentence is, "That so long as a man is not a believer in Christ, the just wrath of God hangs over him, and he is under the curse of God's broken law. We are all by nature born in sin, and children of wrath; and our sins are all upon us, unpardoned, unforgiven, and untaken away, until that day when we believe on the Son of God and are made children of grace. The sentence is a very instructive one, and especially so in the present day. I see in it an unanswerable reply to some grievous errors which are very prevalent in some quarters. (a.) It condemns the notion, upheld by some, that under the Gospel there is no more anger in God, and that he is only love, mercy, and compassion, and nothing else. Here we are plainly told of "the wrath of God." It is clear that God hates sin. There is a hell. God can be angry. Sinners ought to be afraid. (b.) It condemns the notion, maintained by some, that the elect are justified from all eternity, or justified before they believe. Here we are plainly told that if a man believe not on the Son, God's wrath abideth on him. We know nothing of any one's justification until he believes. Those whom God predestinates, God calls and justifies in due season. But there is no justification until there is faith. (c.) It condemns the modern idea, that Christ by His death, justified all mankind, and removed God's wrath from the whole seed of Adam; and that all men and women are justified in reality, though they do not know it, and will all finally be saved. This idea sounds very amiable, but is flatly contrary to the text before us. Here we are plainly told, that until a man '' believeth on the Son of God, the wrath of God abideth on him." (d.) Finally, it condemns the weak and false charity of those who say, that preachers of the Gospel should never speak of God's wrath, and should never mention hell. Here we find that the last words of one of Christ's best servants consist of a solemn declaration of the danger of unbelief. "The wrath of God" is John's last thought. To warn men of God's wrath, and of their danger of hell, is not harshness, but true charity. Many will go to hell, because their ministers never told them about hell. In leaving the passage, the variety of expressions used by John the Baptist concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, is very worthy of notice. He calls Him the Christ,— the bridegroom,— Him that cometh from above,— Him that testifieth what He hath seen and heard,— Him whom God hath sent,— Him who has the Spirit without measure,— Him whom the Father loves,— Him into whose hands all things are given,— Him in whom to believe is everlasting life. To talk of John the Baptist's knowledge of divine things as meager and scanty, in the face of such a passage as this, is, to say the least, not wise, and argues a very slight acquaintance with Scripture. To suppose, as some do, that the man who had such clear views of our Lord's nature and office, could afterwards doubt whether Jesus was the Christ, is to suppose what is grossly improbable. The message that John sent to Jesus when he was in prison, was for the sake of his disciples, and not for his own satisfaction. (Matthew 11:3-14.) THERE are two sayings in these verses which deserve particular notice. They throw light on two subjects in religion, on which clear and well defined opinions are of great importance. We should observe, for one thing, what is said about baptism. We read that "Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." The expression here used is a very remarkable one. In reading it we seem irresistibly led to one instructive conclusion. That conclusion is, that baptism is not the principal part of Christianity, and that to baptize is not the principal work for which Christian ministers are ordained. Frequently we read of our Lord preaching and praying. Once we read of His administering the Lord's supper. But we have not a single instance recorded of His ever baptizing any one. And here we are distinctly told, that it was a subordinate work, which He left to others. Jesus "himself baptized not, but his disciples." The lesson is one of peculiar importance in the present day. Baptism, as a sacrament ordained by Christ Himself, is an honorable ordinance, and ought never to be lightly esteemed in the churches. It cannot be neglected or despised without great sin. When rightly used, with faith and prayer, it is calculated to convey the highest blessings. But baptism was never meant to be exalted to the position which many now-a-days assign to it in religion. It does not act as a charm. It does not necessarily convey the grace of the Holy Ghost. The benefit of it depends greatly on the manner in which it is used. The doctrine taught, and the language employed about it, in some quarters, are utterly inconsistent with the fact announced in the text. If baptism was all that some say it is, we should never have been told, that "Jesus himself baptized not." Let it be a settled principle in our minds that the first and chief business of the Church of Christ is to preach the Gospel. The words of Paul ought to be constantly remembered,— "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." (1 Corinthians 1:17.) When the Gospel of Christ is faithfully and fully preached we need not fear that the sacraments will be undervalued. Baptism and the Lord's supper will always be most truly reverenced in those churches where the truth as it is in Jesus is most fully taught and known. We should observe, for another thing, in this passage, what is said about our Lord's human nature. We read that Jesus was "wearied with his journey." We learn from this, as well as many other expressions in the Gospels, that our Lord had a body exactly like our own. When "the Word became flesh," He took on Him a nature like our own in all things, sin only excepted. Like ourselves, He grew from infancy to youth, and from youth to man's estate. Like ourselves, He hungered, thirsted, felt pain, and needed sleep. He was liable to every sinless infirmity to which we are liable. In all things His body was framed like our own. The truth before us is full of comfort for all who are true Christians. He to whom sinners are bid to come for pardon and peace, is one who is man as well as God. He had a real human nature when He was upon earth. He took a real human nature with Him, when He ascended up into heaven. We have at the right hand of God a High Priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, because He has suffered Himself being tempted. When we cry to Him in the hour of bodily pain and weakness, He knows well what we mean. When our prayers and praises are feeble through bodily weariness, He can understand our condition. He knows our frame. He has learned by experience what it is to be a man. To say that Mary, or any one else, can feel more sympathy for us than Christ, is ignorance no less than blasphemy. The man Christ Jesus can enter fully into everything that belongs to man's condition. The poor, the sick, and the suffering, have in heaven One who is not only an almighty Savior, but a most feeling Friend. The servant of Christ should grasp firmly this great truth, that there are two perfect and complete natures in the one Person whom he serves. The Lord Jesus, in whom the Gospel bids us believe, is, without doubt, almighty God,— equal to the Father in all things, and able to save to the uttermost all those that come unto God by Him. But that same Jesus is no less certainly perfect man,— able to sympathize with man in all his bodily sufferings, and acquainted by experience with all that man's body has to endure. Power and sympathy are marvelously combined in Him who died for us on the cross. Because He is God, we may repose the weight of our souls upon Him with unhesitating confidence. He is mighty to save.— Because He is man, we may speak to Him with freedom, about the many trials to which flesh is heir. He knows the heart of a man.— Here is rest for the weary! Here is good news! Our Redeemer is man as well as God, and God as well as man. He that believeth on Him, has everything that a child of Adam can possibly require, either for safety or for peace. ================== Notes— v1.—[When therefore the Lord knew, &c.] The connection between this chapter and the last will be found at John 3:25. The controversy between John's disciples and the Jews was the means of calling public attention to our Lord's ministry. It became a subject of common conversation, and attracted the notice of the principal religious teachers of the Jews, viz., the Pharisees. They had already been disturbed by the ministry of John the Baptist, and the crowds which attended it. (John 1:19-28.) The deputation which they sent to John had been distinctly told by him that One greater than himself was about to appear. When therefore "the Pharisees heard" that Jesus was actually baptizing more disciples, and attracting more attention than John, we can well imagine that their minds would be even more disturbed than before. A vague uncomfortable feeling would arise in their hearts, that this mysterious person, who had cast out of the temple the buyers and sellers in so miraculous a manner, and was now baptizing so many disciples, might possibly be the Christ. And then would come the attendant feeling, that if this was the Christ, He was not the Christ they either expected or wanted. The result of both feelings would probably be a bitter enmity against our Lord, and a secret determination, if possible, to settle all doubts by putting Him to death. In what manner our Lord "knew" what the Pharisees had heard, we need not be careful to inquire. Possibly He knew it from information obtained by His disciples. We can hardly doubt that some of them kept up intercourse with their old master, John the Baptist, and so learned what was going on at Ænon.— It is more probable that He knew it from His omniscience as God. We are frequently told that "He knew the thoughts" of His enemies, and acted and spoke accordingly. It is good for us all to remember that nothing is spoken, talked of, or reported among men, however secretly, which Christ does not know. v2.—[Though Jesus himself baptized not, &c.] The fact that our Lord did not actually administer baptism with His own hands, is only mentioned here in the Gospels, and is noteworthy. It shows, at any rate, that what is done by Christ's ministers, at Christ's command, in the administration of ordinances, is regarded as done by Christ Himself. The preceding verse says that "Jesus baptized," while the present one says, that He "baptized not." Lightfoot remarks, "It is ordinary, both in Scripture phrase and in other language, to speak of a thing as done by a man himself, which is done by another at his appointment. So Pharaoh's daughter is said to 'nurse Moses,' and Solomon is said to 'build the temple and his own house.' So David 'took Saul's spear and cruse,' meaning Abishai by David's appointment." (1 Samuel 26:12.) The reasons assigned for our Lord's not administering baptism with His own hands, are various. Lightfoot mentions four. 1. "Because he was not sent so much to baptize as to preach. 2. Because it might have been taken as a thing somewhat improper for Christ to baptize in His own name. 3. Because the baptizing that was most proper for Christ to use, was not with water, but with the Holy Ghost. 4. Because he would prevent all quarrels and disputes among men about their baptism, which might have risen if some had been baptized by Christ, and others only by His disciples." To these reasons we may add another of considerable importance. Our Lord would show us that the effect and benefit of baptism do not depend on the person who administers it. We cannot doubt that Judas Iscariot baptized some. The intention of the minister does not affect the validity of the sacrament. One thing seems abundantly clear, and that is, that baptism is not an ordinance of primary, but of subordinate importance, in Christianity. The high-flown and extravagant language used by some divines about the sacrament of baptism and its effects, is quite irreconcilable with the text before us, as well as with the general teaching of Scripture. (See Acts 10:48; 1 Corinthians 1:17.) v3.—[He left Judæa, &c.] The context of the preceding verses seems to show that this movement was intended to avoid the designs of the Pharisees against our Lord. If he had remained in Judæa, He would have been cut off, and put to death before the appointed time. He therefore withdrew into the province of Galilee, where He was further off from Jerusalem, and where His ministry would attract less public notice. Our Lord's conduct on this occasion shows us that it is not obligatory on a Christian to await danger to life and person, when he sees it coming, and that it is not cowardice to use all reasonable means to avoid it. We are not to court martyrdom, or needlessly to throw our lives away. There is a time for all things,— a time to live and work, as well as a time to suffer and to die. Whether some of the primitive martyrs would have acted as our Lord did here may be questioned. Their zeal for martyrdom seems sometimes to have partaken of the character of fanaticism. v4.—[He must needs go through Samaria.] Many pious and profitable remarks have been made on this expression. It has been thought to teach that our Lord went purposely, and out of the regular road, in order to save the soul of the Samaritan woman. It admits of grave question whether this opinion is well-founded.— There was no other way by which a person could conveniently go from Judæa to Galilee, excepting through Samaria.— The expression, therefore, is probably nothing more than a natural introduction to the story of the Samaritan woman. The first in the train of circumstances which led to her conversion, was the circumstance that Jesus was obliged to pass through Samaria, on His journey towards Galilee. This accounted for His meeting with a Samaritan woman. v5.—[Then cometh....city....called Sychar.] The common opinion is, that the city here spoken of is the same as Sichem or Shechem. (Genesis 33:18-19.) Few places in Palestine, after Jerusalem, have had so much of Bible history connected with them. Here God first appeared to Abraham. (Genesis 12:6.) Here Jacob dwelt when he first returned from Padan-aram, and here the disgraceful history of Dinah, and the consequent murder of the Shechemites took place. (Genesis 34:1-25.) Here Joseph's brethren fed their flocks when Jacob sent him to them, little thinking he would never see him again for many years. (Genesis 37:12.) Here, when Israel took possession of the land of Canaan, was one of the cities of refuge. (Joshua 20:7-8.) Here Joshua gathered all the tribes when he addressed them for the last time. (Joshua 24:1.) Here the bones of Joseph were buried, and all the patriarchs were interred. (Joshua 24:32; Acts 7:16.) Here the principal events in the history of Abimelech took place. (Judges 9:1, &c.) Here Rehoboam met the tribes of Israel after Solomom's death, and gave the answer which rent his kingdom in two. (1 Kings 12:1.) Here Jeroboam first dwelt, when he was made king of Israel. (1 Kings 12:25.) And finally, close by Shechem was the city of Samaria itself, and the two hills of Ebal and Gerizim, where the solemn blessings and cursings were recited, after Israel entered Canaan. (Joshua 8:33.) A more interesting neighbourhood it is difficult to imagine. Whichever way the eye of a wearied traveller looked, he would see something to remind him of Israel's history. It is only fair to say that one of the latest travellers in Palestine (Dr. Thomson, author of "The Land and the Book,") doubts whether Sychar and Shechem really were the same place. He grounds his doubt on the fact that the well now called Jacob's well is two miles from the ruins of Shechem, and that close to these ruins are beautiful fountains of water. He thinks it highly improbable that a woman of Shechem would go two miles to draw water, if she could find it close by. He therefore thinks it more likely that a place now called Aschar, which is close to Jacob's well, must be the ancient Sychar, and that Sychar and Shechem were two different places. The subject is one on which it is impossible to attain a conclusive decision. Whether the ruins now called the ruins of Shechem are really on the site of ancient Shechem,— whether the well now called Jacob's well is really the well spoken of in this chapter,— whether ancient Shechem may not have been nearer the well than it now appears,— are all points on which, after eighteen hundred years have passed away, it is impossible to speak positively. It ought, however, to be remembered, that the opinion of most competent judges is almost entirely against Dr. Thomson's theory. Moreover, it is worth noticing that the Samaritan woman's words, "Neither come hither to draw," seem to imply that she had to come some distance to Jacob's well when she drew water. [Near....parcel.... ground....Jacob....Joseph.] The ground here spoken of seems to consist of two parts. One part was bought by Jacob of Hamor, Shechem's father, for a hundred pieces of silver. (Genesis 33:19.) The other seems to have been his by conquest, when his sons slew the Shechemites for dishonouring Dinah. (Genesis 34:28, and Genesis 48:22.) Let it be carefully noted that John here speaks of Jacob and Joseph and the events of their lives, as if the history contained in Genesis was all simple matter of fact. It is always so in the New Testament. The modern theory, that the histories of the Old Testament are only fables, destitute of any foundation in fact, is a mere baseless invention, without a single respectable argument to be adduced in its favour. v6.—[Jacob's well.] It is not known how or when this well received its name. In Genesis we find mention of Abraham and Isaac digging wells, but not of Jacob doing so. All we know about it is what we read in the chapter before us. A well called Jacob's well is still shown to all travellers in Palestine, near the ruins of Shechem, and is commonly supposed to be one of the oldest and most genuine remains of ancient times in the Holy Land. In fact there seems no reason for disputing the common belief, that it is the very identical well at which our Lord sat and held the conversation recorded in this chapter. It is in good preservation, and about thirty yards deep. [Wearied with his journey.] This expression deserves notice. It shows the reality of our Lord's human nature. He had a body like our own, subject to all the conditions of flesh and blood.— It shows our Lord's infinite compassion, humility, and condescension, when He became flesh, and came on earth to live and die for our sins. Though He was rich He became poor. He who had made the world, and whose were "the cattle on a thousand hills," was content to be a weary traveller on foot, in order to provide eternal redemption for us. We never read of Jesus travelling in a carriage, and only once of His riding on a beast.— It supplies the poor with the strongest argument for contentment. If Christ was willing to be poor, we may surely be willing to submit to poverty. Men need not be ashamed of poverty, if they have not brought it on themselves by misconduct. It is disgraceful to be profligate and immoral. But it is no sin to be poor.— Finally, it shows believers what a sympathizing Saviour Christ is. He knows what it is to have a weak and weary body. He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. When our work wearies us, though we are not weary of our work, we may confidently tell Jesus, and ask Him for help. He knows the heart of a weary man. [Sat thus on the well.] The general meaning of these words is, that our Lord sat down on the stones, which, according to Eastern custom, formed a wall or battlement round the mouth of the well. The particular meaning of the word "thus" in the sentence, is a point that has perplexed commentators in every age, and will perhaps never be settled. Some think, as De Dieu, A. Clarke, and Schleusner, that "thus" is a pleonasm, or elegant expletive and redundancy in the Greek original, and that although a Greek would see a meaning in it, as giving a finish to the sentence, it has no special meaning that can be attached to it in the English translation. Some think, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Musculus, Bengel, Glassius, and Wordsworth, that "thus" means "just as He was," without any regular seat, without looking for any convenient position, without any pride or formality, not upon a throne, not upon a cushion, but simply upon the ground. Some think, as Doddridge, that "thus" means immediately, and find a parallel for it in Acts 20:11. Some think, as Calvin, Lightfoot, Dyke, Bullinger, Beza, Parkhurst, Stier, Alford, and Burgon, that "thus" refers to the weariness just mentioned. Jesus, being wearied, sat down on the well accordingly, after the manner and according to the fashion that any weary person would sit. He was weary, and so He sat on the well. The question is one that I feel unable to settle. The last meaning seems to me, on the whole, the most probable one. though it fails to carry complete conviction with it. The use of the word "so," in Acts 7:8, is somewhat like it. The Greek word for "so" in that case is the same as the one here rendered "thus." Burgon remarks on this sentence, "that Jacob and Moses each found his future wife beside a well of water; and here it is seen that One greater than they, their divine Antitype, the Bridegroom takes to Himself His alien spouse, the Samaritan Church, at a well likewise." Quesnel remarks, "The rest of Jesus Christ is as mysterious and full of kindness and beneficence as His weariness.— It is a great matter for a man to learn how to rest Himself without being idle, and to make his necessary repose subservient to the Glory of God." [It was about the sixth hour.] What time of the day was this, according to our calculation of time?— By far the most common opinion is, that the sixth hour here means twelve o'clock, the hottest and sultriest time of the day. It is notorious that the Jewish day began at six o'clock in the evening. Our seven o'clock was their one o'clock, and their sixth hour would be our twelve o'clock. It is however only just and right to say, that some commentators, as Wordsworth and Burgon, maintain strongly that in John's Gospel the Jewish mode of reckoning the hours of the day is not observed. They say that, writing later than the other Evangelists, and in Asia Minor, John uses the Roman or Asiatic mode of reckoning time, and that the Roman mode was like our own. They say, therefore, that when the disciples followed Jesus, (John 1:39,) at the tenth hour, it was ten o'clock in the morning, and when the fever left the ruler's son at the seventh hour, it was seven o'clock in the evening. (John 4:52.) They say that when Pilate brought forth Jesus to the Jews, on the day of the crucifixion, at the sixth hour, (John 19:14,) it was six o'clock in the morning. And finally, they say that when Jesus, in the passage before us, sat wearied on the well at the sixth hour, it means six o'clock in the evening. Moreover, they plead in support of their view, that it is infinitely more likely that a woman would come to a well to draw water at six o'clock in the evening than at twelve o'clock in the day. In Genesis it is distinctly said that the "evening" is the "time that women go out to draw water." (Genesis 24:11.) These arguments are undoubtedly weighty and ingenious, and the matter is one that admits of doubt. Nevertheless, for several reasons, I am disposed to think that the common view of the question is the correct one, and that the sixth hour in this place means twelve o'clock in the day. I purposely omit the consideration of the other places where John mentions hours in his Gospel. None of them seem to me to present any difficulty, except the "sixth hour," in John's account of the crucifixion. That difficulty I shall be prepared to examine in its proper place. I think then that the "sixth hour" in the text before us, means twelve o'clock, for the following reasons: (a.) It seems exceedingly improbable that John would reckon time in a manner different to the other three Gospel writers. (b.) It is by no means clear that the Romans did reckon time in our way, and not in the Jewish way. When the Roman poet Horace describes himself as lying late in bed in a morning, he says. "I lie till the fourth hour." He must surely mean ten o'clock, and not four in the afternoon.— When the Roman poet Martial describes the Roman day, he says, "The first and second hours are employed by clients in attending levees, and the third hour exercises the advocates in the law-courts."— He surely cannot mean that Roman law-courts did not open till two o'clock in the afternoon. About the custom of the Asiatics I offer no opinion. It is a doubtful point. (c.) It is entirely a gratuitous assumption to say that no woman ever came to draw water except in the evening. There must surely be exceptions to every rule. The fact of the woman coming alone, seems of itself to indicate that she came at an unusual hour, and not in the evening. (d.) Last, but not least, it seems far more probable that our Lord would hold a conversation alone with such a person as the Samaritan woman at twelve o'clock in the day, than at six o'clock in the evening. The conversation was not a very short one. There is little or no twilight in Eastern countries. The night soon comes on. And yet, on the theory I oppose, our Lord begins a conversation about six o'clock, and carries it on till the woman is converted. Then the woman goes away to the city and tells the men what has happened, and they all come out to the well to see Jesus. Yet by this time, in all reasonable probability, it would be quite dark, and the night would have begun. And yet, after all this, our Lord says to the disciples, "Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields." (John 4:35.) This last reason weighs very heavily in my mind, in forming a conclusion on the subject. Our Lord appears to me to have reached a resting-place for the middle of the day, according to the Eastern custom in travelling, and to have intended staying by the well for a short time, till the heat of the day was past. The arrival of the Samaritan woman at this hour of the day gave ample time for the conversation, for her rapid return to the city, and for the coming of the inhabitants to the well. I must say that I see a peculiar beauty and fitness in the mention of the sixth hour, if it means twelve o'clock, which I should not see so strongly if it meant six in the evening. To my eyes there is a special seemliness and propriety in the fact that our Lord held His conversation with such a person as this Samaritan woman at noon day. When He talked to Nicodemus, in the preceding chapter, we are told that it was at night. But when He talked to a woman of impure life, we are carefully told that it was twelve o'clock in the day. I see in this fact a beautiful carefulness to avoid even the appearance of evil, which I should entirely miss if the sixth hour meant six o'clock in the evening. I see even more than this. I see a lesson to all ministers and teachers of the Gospel about the right mode of carrying on the work of trying to do good to souls like that of the Samaritan woman. Like their Master, they must be careful about times and hours, and specially if they work alone. If a man will try to do good to a person like the Samaritan woman, alone and without witnesses, let him take heed that he walks in his Master's footsteps, both as to the time of his proceedings as well as to the message he delivers.— I believe there was a deep meaning in the little sentence, "it was about the sixth hour." Augustine thinks that "the sixth hour" here was meant to represent, allegorically, the sixth age of the world. He says that the first hour was from Adam to Noah, the second from Noah to Abraham, the third from Abraham to David, the fourth from David to the Babylonian captivity, the fifth from the captivity to the baptism of John, and the sixth the time of the Lord Jesus. I can see no foundation for these things in the text. If such interpretations of Scripture are correct, it is easy to make the Bible mean anything. THE history of the Samaritan woman, contained in these verses, is one of the most interesting and instructive passages in John's Gospel. John has shown us, in the case of Nicodemus, how our Lord dealt with a self-righteous formalist. He now shows us how our Lord dealt with an ignorant, carnal-minded woman, whose moral character was more than ordinarily bad. There are lessons in the passage for ministers and teachers, which they would do well to ponder. We should mark, firstly, the mingled tact and condescension of Christ in dealing with a careless sinner. Our Lord was sitting by Jacob's well when a woman of Samaria came thither to draw water. At once He says to her, "Give me to drink." He does not wait for her to speak to Him. He does not begin by reproving her sins, though He doubtless knew them. He opens communication by asking a favor. He approaches the woman's mind by the subject of "water," which was naturally uppermost in her thoughts. Simple as this request may seem, it opened a door to spiritual conversation. It threw a bridge across the gulf which lay between her and Him. It led to the conversion of her soul. Our Lord's conduct in this place should be carefully remembered by all who want to do good to the thoughtless and spiritually ignorant. It is vain to expect that such persons will voluntarily come to us, and begin to seek knowledge. We must begin with them, and go down to them in the spirit of courteous and friendly aggression. It is vain to expect that such persons will be prepared for our instruction, and will at once see and acknowledge the wisdom of all we are doing. We must go to work wisely. We must study the best avenues to their hearts, and the most likely way of arresting their attention. There is a handle to every mind, and our chief aim must be to get hold of it. Above all, we must be kind in manner, and beware of showing that we feel conscious of our own superiority. If we let ignorant people fancy that we think we are doing them a great favor in talking to them about religion, there is little hope of doing good to their souls. We should mark, secondly, Christ's readiness to give mercies to careless sinners. He tells the Samaritan woman that if she had asked, "He would have given her living water." He knew the character of the person before Him perfectly well. Yet He says, "If she had asked, He would have given,"— He would have given the living water of grace, mercy, and peace. The infinite willingness of Christ to receive sinners is a golden truth, which ought to be treasured up in our hearts, and diligently impressed on others. The Lord Jesus is far more ready to hear than we are to pray, and far more ready to give favors than we are to ask them. All day long He stretches out His hands to the disobedient and gainsaying. He has thoughts of pity and compassion towards the vilest of sinners, even when they have no thoughts of Him. He stands waiting to bestow mercy and grace on the worst and most unworthy, if they will only cry to Him. He will never draw back from that well-known promise, "Ask and ye shall receive: seek and ye shall find." The lost will discover at the last day, that they had not because they asked not. We should mark, thirdly, the priceless excellence of Christ's gifts when compared with the things of this world. Our Lord tells the Samaritan woman, "He that drinketh of this water shall thirst again, but he that drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst." The truth of the principle here laid down may be seen on every side by all who are not blinded by prejudice or love of the world. Thousands of men have every temporal good thing that heart could wish, and are yet weary and dissatisfied. It is now as it was in David's time,— "There be many that say who will show us any good?" (Psalms 4:6.) Riches, and rank, and place, and power, and learning, and amusements, are utterly unable to fill the soul. He that only drinks of these waters is sure to thirst again. Every Ahab finds a Naboth's vineyard hard by his palace, and every Haman sees a Mordecai at the gate. There is no heart satisfaction in this world, until we believe on Christ. Jesus alone can fill up the empty places of our inward man. Jesus alone can give solid, lasting, enduring happiness. The peace that He imparts is a fountain, which, once set flowing within the soul, flows on to all eternity. Its waters may have their ebbing seasons; but they are living waters, and they shall never be completely dried. We should mark, fourthly, the absolute necessity of conviction of sin before a soul can be converted to God. The Samaritan woman seems to have been comparatively unmoved until our Lord exposed her breach of the seventh commandment. Those heart-searching words, "Go, call thy husband," appear to have pierced her conscience like an arrow. From that moment, however ignorant, she speaks like an earnest, sincere inquirer after truth. And the reason is evident. She felt that her spiritual disease was discovered. For the first time in her life she saw herself. To bring thoughtless people to this state of mind should be the principal aim of all teachers and ministers of the Gospel. They should carefully copy their Master's example in this place. Till men and women are brought to feel their sinfulness and need, no real good is ever done to their souls. Till a sinner sees himself as God sees him, he will continue careless, trifling, and unmoved. By all means we must labor to convince the unconverted man of sin, to prick his conscience, to open his eyes, to show him himself. To this end we must expound the length and breadth of God's holy law. To this end we must denounce every practice contrary to that law, however fashionable and customary. This is the only way to do good. Never does a soul value the Gospel medicine until it feels its disease. Never does a man see any beauty in Christ as a Savior, until he discovers that he is himself a lost and ruined sinner. Ignorance of sin is invariably attended by neglect of Christ. We should mark, fifthly, the utter uselessness of any religion which only consists of formality. The Samaritan woman, when awakened to spiritual concern, started questions about the comparative merits of the Samaritan and Jewish modes of worshiping God. Our Lord tells her that true and acceptable worship depends not on the place in which it is offered, but on the state of the worshiper's heart. He declares, "The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this place nor at Jerusalem worship the Father." He adds that "the true worshipers shall worship in spirit and in truth." The principle contained in these sentences can never be too strongly impressed on professing Christians. We are all naturally inclined to make religion a mere matter of outward forms and ceremonies, and to attach an excessive importance to our own particular manner of worshiping God. We must beware of this spirit, and especially when we first begin to think seriously about our souls. The heart is the principal thing in all our approaches to God. "The LORD looketh on the heart." (1 Samuel 16:7.) The most gorgeous cathedral-service is offensive in God's sight, if all is gone through coldly, heartlessly, and without grace. The feeblest gathering of three or four poor believers in a cottage to read the Bible and pray, is a more acceptable sight to Him who searches the heart than the fullest congregation which is ever gathered in St. Peter's at Rome. We should mark, lastly, Christ's gracious willingness to reveal Himself to the chief of sinners. He concludes His conversation with the Samaritan woman by telling her openly and unreservedly that He is the Savior of the world. "I that speak to thee," He says, "am the Messiah." Nowhere in all the Gospels do we find our Lord making such a full avowal of His nature and office as He does in this place. And this avowal, be it remembered, was made not to learned Scribes, or moral Pharisees, but to one who up to that day had been an ignorant, thoughtless, and immoral person! Dealings with sinners, such as these, form one of the grand peculiarities of the Gospel. Whatever a man's past life may have been, there is hope and a remedy for him in Christ. If he is only willing to hear Christ's voice and follow Him, Christ is willing to receive him at once as a friend, and to bestow on him the fullest measure of mercy and grace. The Samaritan woman, the penitent thief, the Philippian jailor, the publican Zacchæus, are all patterns of Christ's readiness to show mercy, and to confer full and immediate pardons. It is His glory that, like a great physician, He will undertake to cure those who are apparently incurable, and that none are too bad for Him to love and heal. Let these things sink down into our hearts. Whatever else we doubt, let us never doubt that Christ's love to sinners passeth knowledge, and that Christ is as willing to receive as He is almighty to save. What are we ourselves? This is the question, after all, which demands our attention. We may have been up to this day careless, thoughtless, sinful as the woman whose story we have been reading. But yet there is hope. He who talked with the Samaritan woman at the well is yet living at God's right hand, and never changes. Let us only ask, and He will "give us living water." ================== Notes— v7.—[Then cometh...woman...draw water.] The scarcity of water in the hot climates of the East makes drawing water from the nearest well an important part of the daily business of an Eastern household. We learn from other parts of Scripture that it was a work ordinarily done by women. (Genesis 24:11. 1 Samuel 9:11.) A well became naturally a common meeting-place for the inhabitants of a neighbourhood, and especially for the young people. (Judges 5:11.) The insinuation, however, of some writers, as Schottgen, that the Samaritan woman's motives in coming to the well were possibly immoral, seems destitute of any foundation. Bad as her moral character evidently was, we have no right to heap upon her more blame than is warranted by facts. Augustine regards this woman as a type of the Gentile Church, "not now justified, but even now at the point to be justified." I doubt whether we were meant by the Holy Ghost to take this view. There is great danger in adopting such allegorical interpretations. They insensibly draw away the mind from the plain lessons of Scripture. Musculus remarks what a wonderful instance it is of sovereign grace, that our Lord should turn away from learned Scribes, Pharisees, and Priests, to converse with and convert such a person as this woman, to all appearance so utterly unworthy of notice. He also observes how singularly our least movements are overruled by God's providence. Like Rebecca and Rachel, the woman came to the well knowing nothing of the importance of that day's visit to her soul. [Jesus saith...give me to drink.] In this simple request of our Lord there are four things deserving notice. (a.) It was a gracious act of spiritual aggression on a sinner. He did not wait for the woman to speak to Him, but was the first to begin conversation. (b.) It was an act of marvellous condescension. He by whom all things were made, the Creator of fountains, brooks, and rivers, is not ashamed to ask a draught of water from the hand of one of his sinful creatures. (c.) It was an act full of wisdom and prudence. He does not at once force religion on the attention of the woman, and rebuke her for her sins. He begins with a subject apparently indifferent, and yet one of which the woman's mind was doubtless full. He asks her for water. (d.) It was an act full of the nicest tact, and exhibiting perfect knowledge of the human mind. He asks a favour, and puts Himself under an obligation. No line of proceeding, it is well known to all wise people, would be more likely to conciliate the woman's feelings towards Him, and to make her willing to hear His teaching. Simple as the request was, it contains principles which deserve the closest attention of all who desire to do good to ignorant and thoughtless sinners. The idea of Euthymius, that our Lord pretended thirst in order to introduce conversation, is unworthy of notice.— Cyril thinks that our Lord intended to make a practical protest against the exclusiveness of the Jews, by asking drink of a Samaritan woman, and to show her that He disapproved the custom of His nation. v8.—[His disciples...gone...buy meat.] This verse is an instance of our Lord's general rule not to work a miracle in order to supply his own wants. He who could feed five thousand with a few loaves and fishes when He willed, was content to buy food, like any other man.— It is an instance of His lowly-mindedness. The Creator of all things, though rich, for our sakes became poor.— It ought to teach Christians that they are not meant to be so spiritual as to neglect the management of money, and a reasonable use of it for the supply of their wants. God could feed His children, as He fed Elijah, by a daily miracle. But He knows it is better for our souls, and more likely to call grace into exercise, not to feed them so, but to make them think, and use means. There is no real spirituality in being careless about money. Jesus Himself allowed His disciples to "buy." The word rendered "meat" means nothing more than "food" or "nourishment," and must not be confined to "flesh." Out of the sixteen places where it is used in the New Testament, there is not one where it necessarily signifies "flesh." The meat offering of the Old Testament consisted of nothing but flour, oil, and incense. (Leviticus 2:1-2.) The meaning of the word "meat," in the English language, has evidently changed since the last revision of the English Bible. The whole verse is an instance of one of those short, parenthetical, explanatory comments, which are common in John's Gospel. Its object is to explain the circumstance of our Lord being alone at the well, and the fact that He did not ask a disciple to give Him water. v9.—[Then saith...woman...how is it...a Jew...Samaria.] This question implies that the woman was surprised at our Lord speaking to her. It was an unexpected act of condescension on His part, and as such arrested her attention. Thus one point, at any rate, was gained. It is a great matter if we can only get a careless sinner to give us a quiet hearing. We shall soon see how our Lord improved the opportunity. How the woman knew our Lord to be a Jew, is matter of conjecture. Some think that she knew it by the dialect that He spoke. Some think that she knew it by the fringe upon His dress, which he probably wore, in conformity to the Mosaic law, (Numbers 15:38-39,) and which the Samaritans very likely neglected. One thing is very clear. There was nothing in our Lord's personal appearance, when He was a man upon earth, to distinguish Him from any other Jewish traveller who might have been found sitting at a well. There was nothing eccentric or peculiar about his dress. He looked like other men. I venture the opinion that in the woman's question stress really should be laid on the word "woman." She was not only surprised that a Jewish man asked drink of a Samaritan, but also that he asked it of a woman. [The Jews have no dealings...Samaritans.] This sentence is generally thought, with much reason, to be the explanatory comment of John, and not the words of the Samaritan woman. It certainly seems more natural to take it so. The sentence should then be read as a parenthesis. Calvin thinks it is the woman's words, but his reasons are not convincing. The enmity between the Jews and Samaritans, here referred to, no doubt originated in the separation of the ten tribes under Jeroboam, and the establishment of the kingdom of Israel. It was exceedingly increased after the ten tribes were carried into captivity by the Assyrians, by the fact that the Samaritans became mingled with foreigners, whom the king of Assyria sent to Samaria from Babylon and other places, and so lost their right to be called pure Jews. (2 Kings 17:1, &c.) It was further aggravated by the opposition which the inhabitants of Samaria made to the re-building of Jerusalem, after the return from the captivity of Babylon, in the days of Ezra. (Ezra 4:10, &c.) In the day's of our Lord the Jews seem to have gone into the extreme of regarding the Samaritans as entirely foreigners, and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. When they told our Lord that He was "a Samaritan and had a devil," they meant the expression to convey the bitterest scorn and reproach. (John 8:48.) It is clear, however, from the conversation in this chapter, that the Samaritans, however mistaken on many points, were not ignorant heathens. They regarded themselves as descended from Jacob. They had a kind of Old Testament religion. They expected the coming of Messias. The bitter and exclusive spirit of the Jews towards all other nations, referred to in this verse, is curiously confirmed by the language used about the Jews by heathen writers at Rome. Exclusiveness was noted as one among their peculiarities.— The immense difficulty with which even the apostles got over this exclusive feeling, and went forth to preach to the Gentiles, is noticeable both in the Acts and Epistles. (Acts 10:28; Acts 11:2-3; Galatians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:16.) The utter absence of real charity and love among men in the days when our Lord was upon earth, ought not to be overlooked. Well would it be if men had never quarreled about religion after He left the world! Quarrels among the crew of a sinking ship are not more hideous, unseemly, and irrational than the majority of quarrels among professors of religion. An historian might truly apply John's words to many a period in Church history, and say, "The Romanists have no dealings with the Protestants,"— or "the Lutherans have no dealings with the Calvinists,"— or "the Calvinists have no dealings with the Arminians,"— or "the Episcopalians have no dealings with the Presbyterians,"— or "the Baptists have no dealings with those who baptize infants,"— or "the Plymouth Brethren have no dealings with anybody who does not join their company." "These things ought not so to be." (James 3:10.) They are the scandal of Christianity, the joy of the devil, and the greatest stumbling-block to the spread of the Gospel. The Greek words translated "have no dealings," mean literally "use not anything together with" the Samaritans. Pearce says, "The Jews would not eat or drink with the Samaritans, would not drink out of the same cup, or eat of the same dish with them." This fact throws much light on the woman's surprise at our Lord's request, "Give me to drink." v10.—[Jesus answered, &c.] In this verse our Lord proceeds to use the opportunity which the woman's question affords Him. He passes over for the present her expression of surprise at a Jew speaking to a Samaritan. He begins by exciting her curiosity and raising her expectations, by speaking of something within her reach which He calls "living water." The first step to take with a careless sinner after his attention has been arrested, is to produce on his mind the impression that we can tell him of something to his advantage within his reach. There is a certain vagueness in our Lord's words which exhibit His consummate wisdom. A systematic statement of doctrinal truth would have been thrown away at this stage of the woman's feeling. The general and figurative language which our Lord employed, was exactly calculated to arouse her imagination, and to lead her on to further inquiry. [The gift of God.] This expression is variously explained. Some think, as Augustine, Rupertus, Jansenius, Whitby, and Alford, that it means "the Holy Spirit," that peculiar gift which it was the Messiah's special office to impart to men in greater abundance than before had been imparted. (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:45.) [See also in this same Gospel: John 7:37-39; Isaiah 44:3. Some think, as Brentius, Bucer, Musculus, Calovius, Grotius, and Barradius, that it means "the gracious opportunity which God is graciously giving to thee." If thou didst but know what a door of life is close to thee, thou wouldst joyfully use it. Some think, as Euthymius, Toletus, Bullinger, Gualter, Hooker, Beza, Rollock, Lightfoot, Glassius, Dyke, Hildersam, and Gill, that it means "Christ Himself," God's gracious gift to a sinful world. If thou didst but know that God has actually given His only-begotten Son, according to promise, and that He has come into the world, and that it is He who is speaking to thee, thou wouldst at once ask of Him living water. Some think that it means "God's gift, and especially His gift of grace," which is now being proclaimed and made manifest to the world by the appearing on earth of His Son. (See Romans 5:15.) This seems to be the view of Cyril, Lampe, Theophylact, Zwingle, and Calvin. Of these four views the last seems to me, on the whole, the most probable and satisfactory. The first sounds strange and unlike the usual teaching of Scripture. "If thou knewest the Holy Spirit, thou wouldst have asked," is an expression we can hardly expect at this period of our Lord's ministry, when the mission of the Comforter had not yet been explained.— The second view seems hardly more natural than the first.— The third view is undoubtedly recommended by the fact that Christ is frequently spoken of as God's great gift to the world. If the woman had really known anything aright about Messiah, and had known that He was before her, she would have asked of Him living water. Nevertheless, it is a strong objection to this view, that it makes our Lord apparently say the same thing twice over. "If thou knewest Christ, and that it is Christ who speaks." The last view makes the first clause general, "If thou knewest the grace of God," and the second particular, "If thou also knewest that the Saviour Himself was with thee." Thus both clauses receive a meaning. [Living water.] The meaning of this expression, like "the gift of God," is variously explained. Some, as Calovius and Chemnitius, seem to think it means the doctrine of God's mercy, pardon, cleansing, and justification. Others, as Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Gualter, Musculus, and Ferus, think it means the Holy Spirit, renewing, and sanctification. I doubt whether either view is quite correct. I am inclined, with Bullinger and Rollock, to regard the expression as a general figurative description of everything which it is Christ's office to bestow on the soul of man,— pardon, peace, mercy, grace, justification, and sanctification. As water is cleansing, purifying, cooling, refreshing, thirst-satisfying to man's body, so are Christ's gifts to the soul. I think everything that a sinful soul needs is purposely included under the general words, "living water." It comprises not only the justifying "blood which cleanses from all sin," but the sanctifying grace of the Spirit, by which we "cleanse ourselves from all filthiness,"— not only the inward peace which is the result of pardon, but the sense of inward comfort, which is the companion of renewal of hearts. The idea of "water," we should remember, is specially brought forward in some of the Old Testament promises of good things to come. (See Isaiah 12:3; Isaiah 41:17; Isaiah 44:3-4; Ezekiel 47:1-12; Zechariah 13:1; Zechariah 14:8.) A sprinkling of clean water was particularly mentioned as one of the things Messiah was to give. (Isaiah 52:15; Ezekiel 36:25.) To an intelligent reader of the Old Testament the mention of "living water," would at once raise up the idea of Messiah's times. The word "living," applied here to water, must not be pressed too far. It does not necessarily mean anything more than fresh, running waters. Thus it is said that Isaac's servant "found a well of living waters." (Genesis 26:19. See also Numbers 19:17; Song of Son 4:15.) There was undoubtedly a deep meaning in our Lord's words, and a tacit reference to the verse in Jeremiah where God speaks of Himself as "the fountain of living waters." (Jeremiah 2:13.) Nevertheless, the first idea that the words would convey to the woman's mind, would probably be no more than this, that he who sat before her had better, fresher, and more valuable water than that of the well. The fact is, that our Lord purposely used a figurative, general expression, in order to lead the woman's mind gently on. If He had said, "He would have given thee grace and mercy," she would have been unprepared for such purely doctrinal language, and it would have called forth prejudice and dislike. There is a vast quantity of deep truth contained in this verse. It is rich in first principles, linked together in a most instructive chain. (1.) Christ has living water to give to men. (2.) If men would only ask, Christ would at once give. (3.) Men do not ask because they are ignorant.— The verse condemns all who die unpardoned. They have not because they ask not. They ask not because they are blind to their condition. To remove this blindness and ignorance must be the first object we should aim at in dealing with a thoughtless, unconverted man. The notion of Ambrose, Cyprian, and Rupertus, that "living water" here means baptism, is too monstrous to require refutation. It is only a sample of the preposterous views of some of the Fathers and their followers about the sacraments. Bengel remarks on this verse our Lord's readiness to draw lessons of spiritual instruction from every object near Him. To the Jews desiring bread, He spoke of the bread of life. (John 6:33.) To the people at Jerusalem at break of day, He speaks of the light of the world, referring probably to the rising sun. (John 8:2, John 8:12.) To the woman coming to draw water, He speaks of living water. v11.—[The woman saith, &c.] The words of the woman in this and the following verse, imply surprise, curiosity, and perhaps a slight sneer. At any rate they show that her attention was arrested. A strange Jew at a well suddenly speaks to her about "living water." What could He mean? Was He in earnest or not? With a woman's curiosity she desires to know. [Sir.] The Greek word so rendered is generally translated "Lord." This leads some, as Chrysostom, to think, that the woman's heart was so far impressed now, that she purposely used a term of respect and reverence. We must not, however, lay too much stress on the word. It is certainly translated "Sir," in other places, where inferiors speak to superiors, Matthew 13:27; Matthew 21:30; Matthew 27:63; John 4:49; John 5:7; John 12:21; John 20:15; Revelation 7:14. Yet it is difficult to see what other word the woman could have used in addressing a strange man, without rudeness and discourtesy. [Nothing to draw with.]— The Greek expression here is simply a substantive, meaning "an instrument for drawing water." What it was we are left to conjecture. Schleusner suggests from Nonnus that it must mean a cup fastened to a rope. [The well is deep.] These words, according to the universal testimony of travellers at this day, are still literally true. The well is at least thirty yards deep, and to a person not provided with a rope, as the woman doubtless saw was our Lord's case, the water would be inaccessible. [Whence then....that living water.] The Greek word here rendered "that" is simply the article commonly translated "the." It is like "that prophet." (John 1:21.) The ignorance of the woman in thinking of nothing but material water, naturally strikes us. Yet it is nothing more than we see in many other instances in the Gospels. Nicodemus could not see any but a carnal meaning in the new birth. The disciples could not understand our Lord's having "meat to eat," unless it was literal meat. The Jews thought the "bread from heaven" was literal bread. (John 3:4; John 4:33; John 6:34.) The natural heart of man always tries to put a carnal and material sense on spiritual expressions. Hence have arisen the greatest errors about the sacraments. v12.—[Art thou greater.] This question exhibits the woman's curiosity to know who the stranger before her could be. Who art thou that speakest of living water?— It also savours of a sneer and incredulity. Dost thou mean to say that thou canst give me better and more abundant supplies of water, than a well which the patriarch Jacob found sufficient for himself and all his numerous company? Dost thou pretend to know of a better well? Art thou, a poor weary traveller in appearance, so great a person that thou dost possess a better well than Jacob possessed? [Our father Jacob....gave us the well.] Let it be noted that the woman carefully claimed relationship with Jacob, and called him our father, though after all the intermixture of the Samaritans with heathen nations, the relationship was not very easy of proof. But it is common to find people shutting their eyes to difficulties, when they want to prove a connection or relationship. The advocates of an extreme view of apostolical succession seldom condescend to notice difficulties when they assert that episcopally ordained ministers can trace their order up to the apostles. When it says that "Jacob gave" the well, there is probably a reference to the grant which Jacob made to his son Joseph of the district near the well. From Joseph came the tribe of Ephraim, to which, no doubt, the Samaritan woman claimed to belong. (Genesis 48:22.) [Drink....himself....children....cattle.] These words were doubtless said to show the goodness and abundance of the water. Did the stranger at the well really mean to say that he could give any better water? Bucer on this verse, remarks how the Samaritans prided themselves on their relationship to Jacob, and the possession of his well, while they made no effort to imitate his goodness, and points out the tendency of superstition to the same thing, in every age. "True piety," he says, "does not consist in having Jacob's well and Jacob's land, but Jacob's spirit,— not in keeping the bones of the saints, but in imitating their lives." v13.—[Jesus answered, &c.] In this and the following verse our Lord proceeds to raise the desires of the woman by exalting the value of the living water of which He had spoken. He still refrains from distinct statements of doctrinal truth. He still adheres to the figurative expression, "water." And yet He makes an advance, and leads on the woman gently and almost imperceptibly to glorious spiritual things. Now, for the first time, He begins to speak of "everlasting life." [Whosoever drinketh....this water....thirst again.] It will be noted, that our Lord does not answer the woman's questions directly. He keeps steadily to the one point He desires to fasten on her mind, viz.: the infinite excellence of a certain "living water" which He had to give. And first He reminds her of what she knew well by laborious experience. The water of Jacob's well might be good and plentiful. But still he who drank of it was only satisfied for a few hours. He soon thirsted again. We cannot doubt that there was a deep latent thought in our Lord's word's in this sentence. He would have us know that the waters of Jacob's well are typical of all temporal and material good things. They cannot satisfy the soul. They have no power to fill the heart of an immortal creature like man. He who only drinks of them is sure to thirst again. Some have thought that there is a tacit reference in these words to the woman's insatiable love of sin. The similarity ought to be noticed between our Lord's line of argument in this verse, and the line He adopts in recommending to the Jews the bread of life in the sixth chapter. He showed the Jews the superiority of the bread of life over the manna by the words "your fathers did eat manna, and are dead." (John 6:49.) Just so in this place, He shows the inferiority of the water of Jacob's well to the living water, by saying "He that drinks of this water shall thirst again." The two passages deserve a careful comparison. v14.—[Whosoever drinketh....never thirst.] These words contain a precious promise, and declare a glorious truth of the Gospel. The benefits of Christ's gifts are promised to every one who is willing to receive them, whosoever and whatsoever he may be. He may have been as bad as the Samaritan woman. But the promise is for him as well as for her, "whosoever drinketh, shall never thirst."— The declaration "shall never thirst" does not mean, "shall never feel any spiritual want at all." It simply asserts the abiding and enduring nature of the benefits which Christ gives. He that drinks of the living water which Christ gives, shall never entirely and completely lose the cleansing, purifying, and soulrefreshing effects which it produces. Our English translation of this sentence hardly gives the full sense of the Greek. Literally rendered, it would be, "shall never thirst unto eternity." The same expression is used frequently in John's Gospel. See John 6:51-58; John 8:51; John 10:28; John 11:26; John 14:16. [The water....I....give....well....everlasting life.] To see the full meaning of this figurative sentence, it must be paraphrased. The meaning seems to be something of this kind. "The gift of grace, mercy, and peace which I am ready to give, shall be in the heart of him who receives it an everflowing source of comfort, satisfaction, and spiritual refreshment, continuing and flowing on, not only through this life, but unto life eternal. He that receives my gift of living water has a fountain opened in his soul of spiritual satisfaction, which shall neither be dried up in this life or the life to come, but shall flow on to all eternity." Let it be noted that the whole verse is a strong argument in favour of the doctrine of the perpetuity of grace, and the consequent perseverance in the faith of believers. It is difficult to understand how the Arminian doctrine of the possibility of believers completely falling away, and being lost, can be reconciled with any natural interpretation of this verse. Zwingle thinks, with much probability, that the words "a fountain in him," point to the benefits which grace once received makes a man impart to others, as well as enjoy himself. See John 7:38. Rollock remarks on this verse, "Let me say in a word what I feel. You will find nothing either in heaven or in earth, with which you will be satisfied and feel supplied, except Jesus Christ alone, with all that fullness of the Godhead which dwells in Him bodily." Poole says, "He who receiveth the Holy Spirit and the grace thereof, though he will be daily saying give, give, and continually desiring further supplies of grace, yet he shall never wholly want, never want any good thing that shall be needful for him. The seed of God shall abide in him, and His water shall be in him a spring supplying him until he comes to heaven." v15.—[The woman saith, &c.] In this verse, I think, we see the first sparks of good in the woman's soul. Our Lord's words aroused a desire in her heart for this living water of which He had spoken. She does what our Lord said she ought to have done at first. She "asks" Him to give her the water. [Give me this water....that....thirst not....draw.] The motives of the woman in making this request are variously explained. Some think, as Musculus, Calvin, Bucer, Brentius, Gualter, Lightfoot, Poole, and Dyke, that the request was made in a sarcastic and sneering spirit, as though she would say "Truly this water would be a fine thing, if we could get it! Give it me, if you have it to give." Some think, as Augustine, Cyril, Bullinger, Rollock, Hildersam, Jansenius, and Nifanius, that the request was only the lazy, indolent wish of one who was weary of this world's labour, and yet could see nothing but the things of this world in our Lord's sayings, like the request of the Jews, "Evermore give us this bread." (John 6:34.) It is as though she would say, "Anything to save me the trouble of coming to draw water would be a boon. If you can do that for me, do it." As Bengel says, "She wished to have this living fountain at her own house." Some think, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius, that the request was really the prayer of an anxious soul, aroused to some faint spiritual desires by the mention of eternal life. "Hast thou eternal life to bestow? Give it to me." I venture to think that none of these three views is quite correct. The true motive of the request was probably a vague feeling of desire that the woman herself could hardly have defined. It is useless to analyze and scrutinize too closely the first languid and imperfect desires that arise in souls when the Spirit begins His work of conversion. It is folly to say that the first movings of a heart towards God must be free from all imperfect motives and all mixture of infirmity. The woman's motives in saying "Give me this water," were probably mixed and indefinite. Material water was not out of her thoughts, and yet she had probably some desires after everlasting life. Enough for us to know, that she asked and received, she sought and found. Our great aim must be to persuade sinners to apply to Jesus, and to say to Him, "Give me to drink." If we forbid them to ask anything until they can prove that they ask in a perfect spirit, we should do no good at all. It would be as foolish to scrutinize the grammatical construction of an infant's cries, as to analyze the precise motives of a soul's first breathings after God. If it breathes at all and says, "Give," we ought to be thankful. v16.—[Jesus saith....go....call....husband...hither.] This verse begins an entirely new stage in the history of the woman's conversion. From this point we hear no more of "living water." Figurative language is dropped entirely. Our Lord's words become direct, personal, and plain. The woman had asked at last for "living water." At once our Lord proceeds to give it to her. Our Lord's reasons for bidding the woman to call her husband, have been variously interpreted. Some think that he only meant her to understand that He had spoken long enough to her, a solitary woman; and that before He proceeded further, she must call her husband to be a witness of the conversation, and to partake of the benefits He was going to confer. This seems the view of Chrysostom and Theophylact.— Others think, with far more probability, in my judgment, that our Lord's main object in naming the woman's husband, was to produce in her mind conviction of sin, and to show her His own divine knowledge of all things. He knew that she had no husband, and He purposely named him in order to touch her conscience. He always knew the thoughts of those to whom He spoke; and He knew in the present case, what the effect of His words would be. It would bring to light the woman's besetting sin.— It is as though He said. "Thou dost ask me for living water. Thou dost at last express a desire for that great spiritual gift which I am able to bestow. Well, then, I begin by bidding thee know thyself and thy sinfulness. I will show thee that I know thy spiritual disease, and can lay my finger on the most dangerous ailment of thy soul. Go, call thy husband, and come hither." Let it be noted that the first draught of living water which our Lord gave to the Samaritan woman was conviction of sin. That fact is a lesson for all who desire to benefit ignorant and careless sinners. The first thing to be taught to such persons, when once we have got their attention, is their own sinfulness, and their consequent need of a Saviour. No one values the physician until he feels his disease. Augustine thinks that when our Lord said, "Call thy husband," He meant, "Cause thine understanding to be forthcoming. Thy understanding is not with thee. I am speaking after the spirit, and thou hearest after the flesh!" I can see no wisdom in this fanciful idea. v17.—[The woman answered...no husband.] These words were an honest and truthful confession, so far as they went. Whether the woman wished it to be supposed that she was a widow, it would perhaps be hardly fair to inquire. Theophylact and Euthymius suggest that she did wish to deceive our Lord. The way in which our Lord receives her declaration, makes it probable that she did not profess to be a widow, and very likely her dress showed that she was not. In this point of view the honesty of her confession is noteworthy. There is always more hope of one who honestly and bluntly confesses sin, than of a smooth-tongued hypocrite. [Jesus said...thou hast well said...husband.] Our Lord's commendation of the woman's honest confession deserves notice. It teaches us that we should make the best of an ignorant sinner's words. An unskilful physician of souls would probably have rebuked the woman sharply for her wickedness, if her words led him to suspect it. Our Lord on the contrary says, "Thou hast well said." v18.—[Thou hast had five husbands.] Many foolish and unseemly things have been written about this sentence, which it is not worth while to bring forward. Of course it is utterly improbable that the woman had lost five husbands by death, and had been five times a widow. The more likely explanation is that she had been divorced and put away by several husbands in succession. Divorces were notoriously common among the Jews, and in all probability among the Samaritans, for very trivial causes. In the case, however, of the woman before us, the second clause of the verse before us makes it likely that she had been justly divorced for adultery. Augustine regards these five husbands as significant of "the five senses of the body," which are as five husbands by which the soul of the natural man is ruled! I cannot think that our Lord meant anything of the kind.— Euthymius mentions another allegorical view, making the woman to typify human nature, and the five husbands five different dispensations, and him with whom she now lived the Mosaic Law! This seems to me simply absurd. Origen says much the same. It is well to know what patristic interpretation is! [He whom...hast...not thy husband.] These words show plainly that the Samaritan woman was living in adultery up to the very day when our Lord spoke to her. Our Lord's perfect knowledge of the woman's past and present life is very noteworthy. It ought to remind us how perfectly He is acquainted with every transaction of our own lives. From Him no secrets are hid. [In that saidst thou truly.] There is a kindness very worthy of notice in these words. Wicked and abandoned as this Samaritan woman was, our Lord deals gently and kindly with her, and twice in one breath commends her confession: "Thou hast well said.— In that thou saidst truly." Kindness of manner like this will always be found a most important point in dealing with the ungodly. Scolding and sharp-rebuke, however well-deserved, have a tendency to harden and shut up hearts, and to make people bolt their doors. Kindness, on the contrary, wins, softens, conciliates, and disarms prejudice. An unskilful soul-physician would probably have ended his sentence by saying, "Thou art a wicked woman; and if thou dost not repent, thou wilt be lost." All this would have been true no doubt. But how different our Lord's grave and gentle remark, "Thou saidst truly"! v19.—[The woman saith...I perceive...prophet.] I think we see in this verse a great change in the Samaritan woman's mind. She evidently confesses the entire truth of what our Lord had just said, and turns to Him as an anxious inquirer about her soul. It is as though she said, "I perceive at last that thou art indeed no common person. Thou hast told me what thou couldst not have known, if thou wert not a prophet sent from God. Thou hast exposed sins which I cannot deny, and aroused spiritual concern which I would now fain have relieved. Now give me instruction." Let it be noted that the thing which first struck the Samaritan woman, and made her call Jesus "a prophet," was the same that struck Nathanael, viz., our Lord's perfect knowledge.— To call our Lord "a prophet" at first sight may seem not much. But it must be remembered that even after His resurrection, the two disciples going to Emmaus, only described Jesus as a "prophet mighty in deed and word." (Luke 24:19.) A clear knowledge of the divine nature of Messiah seems to have been one of the points on which almost the whole Jewish nation was ignorant. Even the learned Scribes could not explain how Messiah was to be David's Lord and also David's Son. (Mark 12:37.) v20.—[Our fathers worshipped, &c.] To see the full drift of this verse, we must carefully remember the state of the Samaritan woman's mind at this moment. I think that she spoke under spiritual anxiety. She was alarmed by having her sins suddenly exposed. She found herself for the first time in the presence of a prophet. She felt for the first time the necessity of religion. But at once the old question between the Jews and Samaritans arose before her mind. How was she to know what was truth? What was she to believe? Her own people said that the Samaritan mode of worshipping God was correct. The Jews said that Jerusalem was the only place where men ought to worship. Between these two conflicting opinions what was she to do? The natural ignorance of almost all unconverted people, when first aroused to thought about religion, appears strikingly in the woman's words. Man's first idea is to attach great importance to the outward mode of worshipping God. The first refuge of an awakened conscience is strict adherence to some outward form, and zeal for the external part of religion. The woman's readiness to quote "the fathers" and their customs, is an instructive instance of man's readiness to make custom and tradition his only rule of faith. "Our fathers did so," is one of the natural man's favourite arguments. Calvin's comments on the expression "fathers" in this verse are very useful. He remarks, among other things, "None should be reckoned Fathers but those who are manifestly the sons of God." When the woman spoke of "this mountain," she doubtless meant the hill on which the rival temple of Samaria was built, to the bitter annoyance of the Jerusalem Jews. It is said that this temple was first built in the days of Nehemiah by Sanballat, and that his son-in-law, the son of Joiada, whom Nehemiah "chased from him," was its first high-priest. (Nehemiah 13:29.) Some have gone so far as to maintain that the hill Gerizim at Samaria was the hill on which Abraham offered up Isaac, and that the words of the woman refer to this. The more common opinion is that Mount Moriah at Jerusalem was the place. When the woman says, "Ye say," she doubtless includes the whole Jewish nation, of whom she regards our Lord as a representative. Musculus, Baxter, Scott, and Barnes, think that the woman, in this verse, desired to turn away the conversation from her own sins to a subject of public controversy, and in this way to change the subject. I am not however satisfied that this view is correct. I prefer the view of Brentius, which I have already set forth, that she was truly impressed by our Lord's exposure of her wickedness, and made a serious inquiry about the things needful to salvation. She was aroused to seriousness, and asked what was true religion. Her own nation said one thing. The Jews said another. What was truth? In short, her words were only another form of the jailer's question, "What shall I do to be saved?" v21.—[Jesus saith, Woman, believe me.] The calmness, gravity, and solemnity of these opening words are very noteworthy. "I tell you a great truth, which I ask you to credit and believe." Jansenius thinks that our Lord uses the expression "believe me," because the truth he was about to impart was so new and strange, that the woman would be apt to think it incredible. Stier remarks that this is the only time our Lord ever uses this expression "believe me" in the Gospels. [The hour cometh.] The hour, or time here spoken of, means the time of the Gospel, the hour of the Christian dispensation. [Ye shall neither...this mountain...Jerusalem...worship, &c.] Our Lord here declares that under the Gospel there was to be no more distinction of places like Jerusalem. The old dispensation under which men were bound to go up to Jerusalem three times a year, to attend the feasts and worship in the temple, was about to pass away. All questions about the superior sanctity of Samaria or Jerusalem would soon be at an end. A church was about to be founded, whose members would find access to the Father everywhere, and would need no temple-service, and no priests or sacrifices or altars in order to approach God. It was therefore mere waste of time to be disputing about the comparative claims of either Samaria or Jerusalem. Under the Gospel all places would soon be alike. It seems far from improbable that our Lord referred in this verse to the prophecy of Malachi, "In every place incense shall be offered to my name." (Malachi 1:11.) The utter passing away of the whole Jewish system seems clearly pointed at in this verse. To bring into the Christian Church holy places, sanctuaries, altars, priests, sacrifices, gorgeous vestments, and the like, is to dig up that which has been long buried, and to turn to candles for light under the noon-day sun. The favourite theory of the Irvingites that we ought as far as possible in our public worship, to copy the Jewish temple services and ceremonial, seems incapable of reconciliation with this verse. Calvin says, "By calling God the Father in this verse, Christ seems indirectly to contrast Him with the 'fathers' whom the woman had mentioned, and to convey this instruction, that God will be a common Father to all, so that He will be generally worshipped without distinction of place or nation." v22.—[Ye worship....know not what.] In this verse our Lord unhesitatingly condemns the religious system of the Samaritans, as compared with that of the Jews. The Samaritans could show no Scriptural authority, no revelation of God, commanding and sanctioning their worship. Whatever it was, it was purely an invention of man, which God had never formally authorized or accredited. They had no warrant for believing that it was accepted. They had no right to feel sure that their prayers, praises, and offerings were received. In short, all was uncertainty. They were practically worshipping an "unknown God." Mede remarks that the Samaritan woman overlooked the object of worship in her question about the place. "You inquire concerning the place of worshipping. But a far more important question is at issue between us, viz., the Being to be worshipped, respecting whom you are ignorant." [We know what we worship.] In contrast to the Samaritan religious system, our Lord declares that the Jews at any rate could show divine warrant and Scriptural authority for all they did in their religion. They could render a reason of their hope. They knew whom they approached in their religious services. [Salvation is of the Jews.] Our Lord here declares that God's promises of a Saviour and Redeemer specially belong to the Jerusalem Jews. They were the descendants of the tribe of Judah, and to them belonged the house and lineage of David. On this point at any rate the Samaritans had no right whatever to claim equality with the Jews. Granting that the Samaritans had any right to be called Israelites, they were of the tribe of Ephraim, from which it was nowhere said that Messiah should spring. And in truth the Samaritans were of such mixed origin, that they had no right to be called Israelites at all. I believe with Olshausen, that "salvation," in this verse, was really intended to mean "the Saviour" Himself. The use of the article in the Greek is striking. It is literally "the salvation." Does not the saying to Zacchæus point the same way? "This day is salvation come to this house." (Luke 19:9.) The expression "we" in this verse is very interesting. It is a wonderful instance of our Lord's condescension, and one that stands almost alone. He was pleased to speak of Himself, just in the light that He appeared to the woman, as one of the Jewish nation. "I and all other Jews know what we worship." The folly of supposing that ignorance is to be praised and commended in religion, as the mother of devotion, is strongly condemned in this verse. Christ would have Christians "know what they worship." The testimony borne to the general truth of the religious system of the Jews in this place is very striking. Corrupt and wicked as Scribes and Pharisees were, Jesus declares that the Jewish religion was true and Scriptural. It is a mournful proof that a church may retain a sound creed, and yet be on the high road to destruction. Hildersam has a long note which is well worth reading on the words "salvation is of the Jews." Considering the times in which he lived, it shows singularly clear views of God's continual purposes concerning the Jewish nation. He sees in the words the great truth that all God's revelations to man in every age have been made through the Jews. v23.—[The hour cometh and now is.] These words mean that the times of the Gospel approach, and indeed have already begun. "They have begun by the preaching of the kingdom of God. They will be fully brought in by my death and ascension, and the establishment of the New Testament church." [True worshippers...worship...spirit and...truth.] Our Lord here declares who alone would be considered true worshippers in the coming dispensation of the Gospel. They would not be merely those who worshipped in this place or in that place. They would not be exclusively Jews, or exclusively Gentiles, or exclusively Samaritans. The external part of the worship would be of no value compared to the internal state of the worshippers. They only would be counted true worshippers who worshipped in spirit and in truth. The words "in spirit and in truth" are variously interpreted, and much has been written about them. I believe the simplest explanation to be this. The word "spirit" must not be taken to mean the Holy Spirit, but the intellectual or mental part of man in contradistinction to the material or carnal part of man. This distinction is clearly marked in 1 Corinthians 7:34, "Holy in body and in spirit."— "Worship in spirit" is heart-worship in contradistinction to all formal, material, carnal worship, consisting only of ceremonies, offerings, sacrifices, and the like. When a Jew offered a formal meat-offering, with his heart far away, it was worship after the flesh. When David offered in prayer a broken and a contrite heart, it was worship in spirit.— "Worship in truth," means worship "through the one true way of access to God, without the medium of the sacrifices or priesthood, which were ordained till Christ died on the cross. When the veil was rent, and the way into the holiest made manifest by Christ's death, then, and not till then, men "worshipped in truth." Before Christ, they worshipped through types, and shadows, and figures, and emblems. After Christ they worshipped in truth.— Spirit is opposed to "flesh;" truth to "shadow." "Spirit," in short, is heart-service, contrasted with lip worship and formal devotion. "Truth" is the full light of the Christian dispensation contrasted with the twilight of the law of Moses. The view I have endeavoured to give is substantially that of Chrysostom and Euthymius. Caryl, quoted by Ford, says, "In spirit regards the inward power, in truth the outward form. The first strikes at hypocrisy, the second at idolatry." [The Father seeketh such...worship him.] This is a remarkable sentence. I believe it to mean that "the hour is come, in which the Father has ordained from eternity that He will gather out of the world a company of true and spiritual worshippers. He is even now seeking out and gathering in such worshippers."— The expression "seeketh" is peculiar. There is something like it in the sentence, "The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which is lost." (Luke 19:10.) It seems to show the exceeding compassion of the Father, and His infinite willingness to save souls. He does not merely-wait for men to come to Him. He "seeks" for them.— It also shows the wide opening of God the Father's mercy under the Gospel. He no longer confines His grace to the Jews. He now seeks and desires to gather in everywhere true worshippers out of every nation. The clause appears to me specially intended to encourage the Samaritan woman. Let her not trouble herself with difficulties about the comparative claims of the Samaritan and Jewish systems. Was she willing to be a spiritual worshipper? That was the one question which deserved her attention. Trapp observes, "How should this fire up our hearts to spiritual worship! That God seeks for such worshippers!" v24.—[God is a Spirit.] Our Lord here declares to the Samaritan woman the true nature of God. Let her cease to think that God was such an one as man, and that He could not be found, or approached, or addressed, like a mere earthly monarch, except at one particular place. Let her learn to have higher, nobler, and more exalted views of the Being with whom sinners have to do. Let her know this day that God was a Spirit. The declaration before us is one of the most lofty and definite sayings about God's nature which is to be found in the whole Bible. That such a declaration should have been made to such a person as the Samaritan woman is a wonderful instance of Christ's condescension! To define precisely the full meaning of the expression is past man's understanding. The leading idea most probably is, that "God is an immaterial being, that He dwelleth not in temples made with hands, and that He is not, like ourselves, therefore, absent from one place when He is present at another." These things are all true, but how little we can realize them! Cornelius á Lapide gives an excellent summary of the opinions of heathen philosophers on the nature of God, in his commentary on this verse. [They....worship....must....worship....spirit....truth.] Our Lord draws this broad conclusion from the statement of God's nature which He has just made. If "God is a Spirit" it behooves those who would worship Him acceptably, to worship in spirit and in truth. It is unreasonable to suppose that He can like any worship which does not come from the heart, or can be so well pleased with worship which is offered through types and ceremonies, as with worship offered through the true way which He has provided, and is now revealing. The importance of the great principle laid down in this and the preceding verse, can never be overrated. Any religious teaching which tends to depreciate heart-worship, and to turn Christianity into a mere formal service, or which tends to bring back Jewish shadows, ceremonies, and services, and to introduce them into Christian worship, is on the face of these remarkable verses most unscriptural and deserving of reprobation. Of course we must not admit the idea, that in this and the preceding verse, Jesus meant to pour contempt on the ceremonial law, which God Himself had given. But He plainly teaches that it was an imperfect dispensation, given because of man's ignorance and infirmity, as we give pictures to children in teaching them. It was, in fact, a schoolmaster to Christ. (Galatians 3:24.) To want men to return to it is as absurd as to bid grown up people begin learning the alphabet by pictures in an infant school.— On the other hand, as Beza remarks, we must not run into the extreme of despising all ordinances, sacraments, and outward ceremonies in religion. These things have their use and value, however much they may be abused. v25.—[The woman saith I know...Messias...Christ, &c.] This verse is an interesting one. It shows the woman at last brought to the very state of mind in which she would be prepared to welcome a revelation of Christ. She had been told of "living water," and had expressed a desire for it. She had been told her own sin, and had been unable to deny it. She had been told the uselessness of resting on any formal membership of the Samaritan Church, and the necessity of spiritual and heart-worship of God. And now what can she say? It is all true, she feels,— she cannot gainsay it. But what can she do? To whom is she to go? Whose teaching can she follow? All she can do is to say that "she knows Messias is one day coming, and that He will make all things clear and plain." It is evident that she wishes for Him. She is uncomfortable and sees no relief for her newly raised perplexities, unless Messias should appear. The mention of Messias in this verse, makes it clear that the Samaritans were not altogether ignorant of the Old Testament, and that there was an expectation of a Redeemer of some kind among them, as well as among the Jews. The existence of a general expectation of this sort throughout the East, at the time when our Lord appeared on earth, is a fact to which even heathen writers have testified. When the woman says, "He will tell us all things," we must probably not inquire too closely into what she meant. It is very likely that she had only a vague feeling that Messias would remove all doubts and show all things needful to salvation. Chrysostom remarks on this verse, "The woman was made dizzy by Christ's discourse, and fainted at the sublimity of what He said, and in her trouble saith, I know that Messias cometh." Wordsworth observes, that the Samaritan woman had a clearer knowledge of Messiah's office than the Jews generally showed. She looked for Him as a Teacher. They looked for Him as a conquering King. Beza and A. Clark think, that the words, "which is called Christ," in this verse, are John's parenthetical explanation of the word Messias. It is certainly rather unlikely that the woman would have used them in addressing a Jew. Yet most commentators think that they were her words. v26.—[Jesus saith...I...speak...am He.] These words are the fullest declaration which our Lord ever made of His own Messiahship, which the Gospel writers have recorded. That such a full declaration should be made to such a person as the Samaritan woman is one of the most wonderful instances of our Lord's grace and condescension related in the New Testament! At last the woman obtained an answer to one of her first questions, "Art thou greater than our father Jacob?" When the answer came it completely converted her soul. Rollock remarks on this verse, how ready and willing Christ is to reveal Himself to a sinner's soul. The very moment that this woman expressed any desire for Messiah, He at once revealed Himself to her— "I am He." Quesnel observes, "It is a great mistake to suppose that the knowledge of the mysteries of religion ought not to be imparted to women by the reading of Scripture, considering this instance of the great confidence Christ reposed in this woman by His manifestation of Himself. The abuse of the Scriptures and the sin of heresies, did not proceed from the simplicity of women, but from the conceited learning of men." In leaving the whole passage, there are several striking points which ought never to be forgotten. (a.) Our Lord's mercy is remarkable. That such an one as He should deal so graciously with such a sinner is a striking fact. (b.) Our Lord's wisdom is remarkable. How wise was every step of His way in dealing with this sinful soul! (c.) Our Lord's patience is remarkable. How He bore with the woman's ignorance, and what trouble He took to lead her to knowledge! (d.) Our Lord's power is remarkable. What a complete victory He won at last! How almighty must that grace be which could soften and convert such a carnal and wicked heart! This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/ryle-expository-thoughts/ THESE verses continue the well-known story of the Samaritan woman's conversion. Short as the passage may appear, it contains points of deep interest and importance. The mere worldling, who cares nothing about experimental religion, may see nothing particular in these verses. To all who desire to know something of the experience of a converted person, they will be found full of food for thought. We see, firstly, in this passage, how marvelous in the eyes of man are Christ's dealings with souls. We are told that the disciples "marveled that he talked with the woman." That their Master should take the trouble to talk to a woman at all, and to a Samaritan woman, and to a strange woman at a well, when He was wearied with His journey,— all this was wonderful to the eleven disciples. It was a sort of thing which they did not expect. It was contrary to their idea of what a religious teacher should do. It startled them and filled them with surprise. The feeling displayed by the disciples on this occasion, does not stand alone in the Bible. When our Lord allowed publicans and sinners to draw near to Him and be in His company, the Pharisees marveled. They exclaimed, "This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them." (Luke 15:2.)—When Saul came back from Damascus, a converted man and a new creature, the Christians at Jerusalem were astonished. "They believed not that he was a disciple." (Acts 9:26.)—When Peter was delivered from Herod's prison by an angel, and brought to the door of the house where disciples were praying for his deliverance, they were so taken by surprise that they could not believe it was Peter. "When they saw him they were astonished." (Acts 12:16.) But why should we stop short in Bible instances? The true Christian has only to look around him in this world in order to see abundant illustrations of the truth before us. How much astonishment every fresh conversion occasions! What surprise is expressed at the change in the heart, life, tastes, and habits of the converted person! What wonder is felt at the power, the mercy, the patience, the compassion of Christ! It is now as it was eighteen hundred years ago. The dealings of Christ are still a marvel both to the Church and to the world. If there was more real faith on the earth, there would be less surprise felt at the conversion of souls. If Christians believed more, they would expect more, and if they understood Christ better, they would be less startled and astonished when He calls and saves the chief of sinners. We should consider nothing impossible, and regard no sinner as beyond the reach of the grace of God. The astonishment expressed at conversions is a proof of the weak faith and ignorance of these latter days. The thing that ought to fill us with surprise is the obstinate unbelief of the ungodly, and their determined perseverance in the way to ruin. This was the mind of Christ. It is written that He thanked the Father for conversions. But He marveled at unbelief. (Matthew 11:25; Mark 6:6.) We see, secondly, in this passage, how absorbing is the influence of grace, when it first comes into a believer's heart. We are told that after our Lord had told the woman He was the Messiah, "She left her water-pot and went her way into the city, and saith to the men, Come, see a man which told me all things that ever I did." She had left her home for the express purpose of drawing water. She had carried a large vessel to the well, intending to bring it back filled. But she found at the well a new heart, and new objects of interest. She became a new creature. Old things passed away. All things became new. At once everything else was forgotten for the time. She could think of nothing but the truths she had heard, and the Savior she had found. In the fullness of her heart she "left her water-pot," and hastened away to tell others. We see here the expulsive power of the grace of the Holy Ghost. Grace once introduced into the heart drives out old tastes and interests. A converted person no longer cares for what he once cared for. A new tenant is in the house. A new pilot is at the helm. The whole world looks different. All things have become new. It was so with Matthew the publican. The moment that grace came into his heart he left the receipt of custom. (Matthew 9:9.)—It was so with Peter, James, and John, and Andrew. As soon as they were converted they forsook their nets and fishing-boats. (Mark 1:16-20.)—It was so with Saul the Pharisee. As soon as he became a Christian he gave up all his brilliant prospects as a Jew, in order to preach the faith he had once despised. (Acts 9:20.)—The conduct of the Samaritan woman was precisely of the same kind. For the time present the salvation she had found completely filled her mind. That she never returned for her water-pot would be more than we have a right to say. But under the first impressions of new spiritual life, she went away and "left her water-pot" behind. Conduct like that here described is doubtless uncommon in the present day. Rarely do we see a person so entirely taken up with spiritual matters, that attention to this world's affairs is made a secondary matter, or postponed. And why is it so? Simply because true conversions to God are uncommon. Few really feel their sins, and flee to Christ by faith. Few really pass from death to life, and become new creatures. Yet these few are the real Christians of the world. These are the people whose religion, like the Samaritan woman's, tells on others. Happy are they who know something by experience of this woman's feelings, and can say with Paul, "I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ"! Happy are they who have given up everything for Christ's sake, or at any rate have altered the relative importance of all things in their minds! "If thine eye be single thy whole body shall be full of light." (Philippians 3:8; Matthew 6:22.) We see, lastly, in this passage, how zealous a truly converted person is to do good to others. We are told that the Samaritan woman "went into the city, and said to the men, Come, see a man which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?" In the day of her conversion she became a missionary! She felt so deeply the amazing benefit she had received from Christ, that she could not hold her peace about Him. Just as Andrew told his brother Peter about Jesus, and Philip told Nathanael that he had found Messiah, and Saul, when converted, straightway preached Christ, so, in the same way, the Samaritan woman said, "Come and see Christ." She used no abstruse arguments. She attempted no deep reasoning about our Lord's claim to be the Messiah. She only said, "Come and see." Out of the abundance of her heart her mouth spoke. That which the Samaritan woman here did, all true Christians ought to do likewise. The Church needs it. The state of the world demands it. Common sense points out that it is right. Every one who has received the grace of God, and tasted that Christ is gracious, ought to find words to testify of Christ to others. Where is our faith, if we believe that souls around us are perishing, and that Christ alone can save them, and yet hold our peace? Where is our charity if we can see others going down to hell, and yet say nothing to them about Christ and salvation?—We may well doubt our own love to Christ, if our hearts are never moved to speak of Him. We may well doubt the safety of our own souls, if we feel no concern about the souls of others. What are we ourselves? This is the question, after all, which demands our notice. Do we feel the supreme importance of spiritual things, and the comparative nothingness of the things of the world? Do we ever talk to others about God, and Christ, and eternity, and the soul, and heaven, and hell? If not, what is the value of our faith? Where is the reality of our Christianity? Let us take heed lest we awake too late, and find that we are lost forever, a wonder to angels and devils, and, above all, a wonder to ourselves, because of our own obstinate blindness and folly. ================== Notes— v27.—[Upon this.] The true idea contained in this expression seems to be, "At this point, at this critical juncture in the conversation between our Lord and the woman."— What the woman would have said next after our Lord's marvelous discovery of Himself, we are left to conjecture. But just as our Lord said, "I am the Messiah," the disciples returned from buying food, and their appearance stopped the conversation. The woman's heart was probably too full, and her mind too much excited to say more in the presence of witnesses, and especially of strangers. Therefore no more was said, and she withdrew. The soul, in the beginning of a work of grace, shrinks from discovering its workings before strangers. [Marveled...talked with the woman.] I am inclined to think that these words would have been more correctly rendered, "Talked with a woman." There is no article in the original Greek. The wonder of the disciples was excited, not so much by our Lord talking to this woman, as by His talking to a woman at all. It is clear from Rabbinical writings, that there was a common opinion among the Jews that both in understanding and religion women were an inferior order of beings to men. This ignorant prejudice had most likely leavened the minds of the disciples, and is probably referred to in this place. Of the woman's moral character it is not clear that the disciples could know anything at all. Rupertus thinks that our Lord, by conversing openly with a Samaritan woman, wished to show His disciples by an example, that the wall between Jews and other people was to be broken down by the Gospel, just as He taught Peter the same lesson after His ascension, by the vision of the sheet full of clean and unclean beasts. (Acts 10:11-15.) He thinks that the wonder of the disciples arose from the same Jewish prejudice against intercourse with uncircumcised Gentiles which appeared so strongly in after times. Lightfoot, Schottgen, and Tholuck quote proverbial sayings from Rabbinical writers, showing the Jewish feeling about women. The following are instances— "He who instructs his daughter in the law plays the fool." "Do not multiply discourses with a woman." "Let no one talk with a woman in the street, no not with his own wife."— Whitby also says, from Buxtorf, that the Rabbins say that "talking with a woman is one of the six things which make a disciple impure." [No man said, What seekest...why talkest, &c.] We are left to conjecture whether both these questions apply to our Lord, or whether the first applied to the woman, "What seekest thou of Him?" and the second to our Lord, "Why talkest thou with her?" The point is of no particular importance. To me, however, it appears that both questions apply to Christ.— "No man said, 'What art thou seeking from her? Why art thou talking with her?' " Grotius suggests that the disciples supposed our Lord might have been seeking meat or drink from the Samaritan woman, and meant, "Why seekest thou any meat or drink from her?" I venture to doubt whether both questions had not better have been translated alike, "What art thou seeking from her? What art thou talking about with her?" The Greek word is the same which our translators have rendered "what" in the first question, and "why" in the second. The expression, "No man said," seems to imply that no man ventured to ask any question what was our Lord's reason for talking with the woman. It is not very clear why the sentence is introduced. The object probably is, as Cyril and Chrysostom remark, to show us the deep reverence and respect with which the disciples regarded our Lord and all His actions, even at this early period of His ministry.— It also shows us that they sometimes thought things about Him to which they dared not give expression, and saw deeds of His which they could not understand, but were content silently to wonder at them. There is a lesson for us in their conduct. When we cannot understand the reason of our Lord's dealings with souls, let us hold our peace, and try to believe that there are reasons which we shall know one day. A good servant in a great house must do his own duty, and ask no questions. A young student of medicine must take many things on trust. v28.—[The woman...left...water-pot.] The Greek word here rendered "water-pot" is the same that is used in the account of the miracle at Cana in Galilee. (John 2:6.) It does not mean a small drinking-vessel, but a large jar, such as a woman in Eastern countries would carry on her head. We can therefore well understand that if the woman wished to return in haste to the city she would leave her water-pot. So large a vessel could not be carried quickly, whether empty or full. The mind of the woman in leaving her water-pot seems to me clear and unmistakable. She was entirely absorbed in the things which she had heard from our Lord's mouth. She was anxious to tell them without delay to her friends and neighbors. She therefore postponed her business of drawing water, for which she had left her house, as a matter of secondary importance, and hurried off to tell others what she had been told. The sentence is deeply instructive. Lightfoot thinks, beside this, that the woman left her water-pot out of kindness to our Lord, "that Jesus and His disciples might have wherewithal to drink." [Went her way....city.] The Greek word rendered "went her way," means simply, "departed" or ''went." The city must of course mean "Sychar." [Saith to the men.] We must not suppose that the woman spoke to the men only, and not to her own sex. But it is probable that the "men" of the place would be the first persons she would see, and that the women would not be in the streets, but at home. Moreover it is not unlikely that the expression is meant to show us the woman's zeal and anxiety to spread the good tidings. She did not hesitate to speak to men, though she well knew that anything a woman might say about religion was not likely to command attention. Cyril, on this verse, remarks the power of Christ's grace. He began by bidding the woman to go and "call her husband." The end of the conversation which ensued was her going and calling all the men of the city to come and see Christ. v29.—[Come, see a man.] The missionary spirit of the woman, in this verse, deserves special notice. Having found Christ herself, she invites others to come and be acquainted with Him. Origen calls her "the apostle of the Samaritans." Let it be noted that her words are simple in the extreme. She enters into no argument. She only asks the men to "come and see." This, after all, is often the best way of dealing with souls. A bold invitation to come and make trial of the Gospel often produces more effect than the most elaborate arguments in support of its doctrines. Most men do not want their reason convinced so much as their will bent, and their conscience aroused. A simple-minded, hearty, unlearned young disciple will often touch hearts that would hear an abstruse argument without being moved.— This fact is most encouraging to all believers who try to do good. All cannot argue. But all believers may say, "Come and see Christ. If you would only look at Him and see Him, you would soon believe." Barradius remarks what a practical illustration the woman affords of one of the concluding sentences of Revelation, "Let him that heareth say, Come." (Revelation 22:17.) The Samaritan woman having heard, said "Come," and the result was that many souls came and took the water of life freely. Cyril remarks the difference between the woman's conduct and that of the servant who buried his talent in the ground. She received the talent of the good tidings of the Gospel, and at once put it out at interest. Chrysostom remarks the wisdom of the woman. "She did not say, Come, believe, but Come, see, a gentler expression than the other, and one which more attracted them." [Told me all things...ever I did.] These words must be taken with some qualifications. Of course they cannot mean that our Lord had literally told the woman "all things that ever she did in her life." This would have been physically impossible in the space of a single afternoon.— The probable meaning is, "He has told me all the principal sins that I have committed. He has shown a perfect knowledge of the chief events of my life. He has shown such thorough acquaintance with my history, that I doubt not He could have told me anything I ever did." Some allowance must probably be made for the warm and excited feelings of the woman when she spoke these words. She used hyperbolical and extravagant language, under the influence of these feelings, which she would probably not have used in a calm state of mind, and which we must therefore not judge too strictly. Moreover, as Poole remarks, it admits of doubt whether our Lord may not have spoken of other things in the conversation, which John has not been inspired to record. Let it be noted, that the Samaritan woman, in saying that our Lord had "told her all things she had ever done," very probably referred to the common opinion about Messiah's omniscience. The Rabbinical writers, according to Lightfoot, specially applied to Messiah the words of Isaiah, "He shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by the sight of his eyes." (Isaiah 11:3.) Her words, therefore, were a well-known argument that our Lord must be the Christ, and her object in using them would be thoroughly understood. [Is not this the Christ?] The Greek words so rendered would be translated with equal correctness, "Is this the Christ? Can this be the Christ?" A similar form of interrogative sentence is found in thirteen other places in the New Testament. In twelve of them the interrogative is used without "not," viz., Matthew 7:16; Matthew 26:22, Matthew 26:25; Mark 4:21; Mark 14:19; Luke 4:34; John 7:31; John 8:22; John 18:35; Acts 10:47; 2 Corinthians 1:17; James 3:11.— In only one place is the interrogative used with "not," Matthew 12:23. I am inclined, on the whole, to think that "not" would have been better omitted in the sentence before us. Euthymius takes this view. The value of questions, if we want to do good to souls, is well illustrated in this verse. A question often sets working a mind which would be utterly unmoved by an affirmation. It drives the mind to exertion, and by a gentle compulsion arouses it to think. Men are far less able to go to sleep under religious teaching, when they are invited to answer a question. The number of questions in the New Testament is a striking and instructive fact. Had the woman said, "This is the Christ!" she might have excited prejudice and dislike. By asking, "Is this the Christ?" she got the men to inquire and judge for themselves. v30.—[Then they went out of the city.] This sentence is full of encouragement to all who try to do good to souls. The words of one single woman were the means of arousing a whole city to go forth and inquire about Christ. We must never despise the smallest and meanest efforts. We never know to what the least beginnings may grow. The grain of mustard seed at Sychar was the word of a feeble woman, "Come and see." Specially we ought to observe the encouragement the verse affords to the efforts of women. A woman may be the means, under God, of founding a Church. The first person baptized by Paul in Europe was not a man but a woman, Lydia, the seller of purple.— Let women never suppose that men only can do good. Women also, in their way, can evangelize as really and truly as men. Every believing woman who has a tongue can speak to others about Christ.— The Samaritan woman was far less learned than Nicodemus. But she was far bolder, and so did far more good. [And came unto him.] Perhaps the sentence would be more literally rendered, "were coming," or "began to come to Him." It was while they were coming that the conversation which immediately follows, between Christ and His disciples, took place, and perhaps it was the sight of the crowd coming which made our Lord say some of the things that He did. Calvin remarks on this part of the woman's history, that some may think her blamable, in that "while she is still ignorant and imperfectly taught, she goes beyond the limits of her faith." I reply that she would have acted inconsiderately if she had assumed the office of a teacher; but when she desires nothing more than to excite her fellow-citizens to hear Christ speaking, we will not say that she forgot herself, or proceeded further than she had a right to do. She merely does the office of a trumpet or a bell, to invite others to come to Christ." The concluding verse shows us most forcibly that ministers and teachers of religion ought never to be above taking pains and trouble with a single soul. A conversation with one person was the means of leading a whole city to come and hear Christ, and resulted in the salvation of many souls. Cornelius á Lapide, at this point of his commentary, gravely informs us that the name of the Samaritan woman was Photina,— that after her conversion she preached the Gospel at Carthage, and that she suffered martyrdom there on the 20th of March, on which day the Romish Martyrology makes special mention of her name! He also tells us that her head is kept as a relic at Rome, in the Basilica of St. Paul, and that it was actually shown to him there!— It is well to know what ridiculous and lying legends the Church of Rome palms upon Roman Catholics as truths, while she withholds from them the Bible! WE have, for one thing, in these verses, an instructive pattern of zeal for the good of others. We read, that our Lord Jesus Christ declares, "My meat is to do the will of him which sent me, and to finish his work." To do good was not merely duty and pleasure to Him. He counted it as His food, meat and drink. Job, one of the holiest Old Testament saints, could say, that he esteemed God's word "more than his necessary food." (Job 23:12.) The Great Head of the New Testament Church went even further. He could say the same of God's work. Do we do any work for God? Do we try, however feebly, to set forward His cause on earth,— to check that which is evil, to promote that which is good? If we do, let us never be ashamed of doing it with all our heart, and soul, and mind, and strength. Whatever our hand finds to do for the souls of others, let us do it with our might. (Ecclesiastes 9:10.) The world may mock and sneer, and call us enthusiasts. The world can admire zeal in any service but that of God, and can praise enthusiasm on any subject but that of religion. Let us work on unmoved. Whatever men may say and think, we are walking in the steps of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us, beside this, take comfort in the thought that Jesus Christ never changes. He that sat by the well of Samaria, and found it "meat and drink" to do good to an ignorant soul, is always in one mind. High in heaven at God's right hand, He still delights to save sinners, and still approves zeal and labor in the cause of God. The work of the missionary and the evangelist may be despised and ridiculed in many quarters. But while man is mocking, Christ is well pleased! Thanks be to God, Jesus is the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever. We have, for another thing, in these verses, strong encouragement held out to those who labor to do good to souls. We read, that our Lord described the world as a "field white for the harvest;" and then said to His disciples, "He that reapeth, receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal." Work for the souls of men, is undoubtedly attended by great discouragements. The heart of natural man is very hard and unbelieving. The blindness of most men to their own lost condition and peril of ruin, is something past description. "The carnal mind is enmity against God." (Romans 8:7.) No one can have any just idea of the desperate hardness of men and women, until he has tried to do good. No one can have any conception of the small number of those who repent and believe, until he has personally endeavored to "save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22.) To suppose that everybody will become a true Christian, who is told about Christ, and entreated to believe, is mere childish ignorance. "Few there be that find the narrow way"! The laborer for Christ will find the vast majority of those among whom he labors, unbelieving and impenitent, in spite of all that he can do. "The many" will not turn to Christ. These are discouraging facts. But they are facts, and facts that ought to be known. The true antidote against despondency in God's work, is an abiding recollection of such promises as that before us. There are "wages" laid up for faithful reapers. They shall receive a reward at the last day, far exceeding anything they have done for Christ,— a reward proportioned not to their success, but to the quantity of their work. They are gathering "fruit," which shall endure when this world has passed away,— fruit, in some souls saved, if many will not believe, and fruit in evidences of their own faithfulness, to be brought out before assembled worlds. Do our hands ever hang down, and our knees wax faint? Do we feel disposed to say, "my labor is in vain and my words without profit"? Let us lean back at such seasons on this glorious promise. There are "wages" yet to be paid. There is "fruit" yet to be exhibited. "We are a sweet savor of Christ, both in them that are saved and in them that perish." (2 Corinthians 2:15.) Let us work on. "He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him." (Psalms 126:6.) One single soul saved, shall outlive and outweigh all the kingdoms of the world. We have, lastly, in these verses, a most teaching instance of the variety of ways by which men are led to believe Christ. We read that "many of the Samaritans believed on Christ for the saying of the woman." But this is not all. We read again, "Many more believed because of Christ's own word." In short, some were converted through the means of the woman's testimony, and some were converted by hearing Christ Himself. The words of Paul should never be forgotten, "There are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all." (1 Corinthians 12:6.) The way in which the Spirit leads all God's people is always one and the same. But the paths by which they are severally brought into that road are often widely different. There are some in whom the work of conversion is sudden and instantaneous. There are others in whom it goes on slowly, quietly, and by imperceptible degrees. Some have their hearts gently opened, like Lydia. Others are aroused by violent alarm, like the jailor at Philippi. All are finally brought to repentance toward God, faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and holiness of conversation. But all do not begin with the same experience. The weapon which carries conviction to one believer's soul, is not the one which first pierces another. The arrows of the Holy Ghost are all drawn from the same quiver. But He uses sometimes one and sometimes another, according to His own sovereign will. Are we converted ourselves? This is the one point to which our attention ought to be directed. Our experience may not tally with that of other believers. But that is not the question. Do we feel sin, hate it, and flee from it? Do we love Christ, and rest solely on Him for salvation? Are we bringing forth fruits of the Spirit in righteousness and true holiness? If these things are so we may thank God, and take courage. ================== Notes— v31.—[In the mean while.] This expression means "during the time when the Samaritans were coming out of the city to the well," between the time when the woman went her way, and the time when her fellow-countrymen, aroused by her testimony, appeared at the well. It is highly probable that they were already in sight. [Prayed.] The Greek word so rendered is remarkable. It is frequently used to convey the idea of "asking, or making inquiry." It is a curious fact that it is not used in describing any person's address to God in prayer, except in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ. (John 14:16; John 16:26; John 17:9, John 17:15, John 17:20.) There is one remarkable instance where it seems to be used in describing a believer's prayer. (1 John 5:16.) But this instance stands so entirely alone that it is probable the meaning is not "pray," but "make curious inquiry." [Master, eat.] The difference between our Lord and His disciples appears here in a striking manner. Their weak minds were preoccupied with the idea of food and bodily sustenance. His heart was filled with the great object of His ministry, "doing good to souls." It is a striking illustration of a difference that may frequently be seen between a believer of great grace and a believer of little grace. The latter, with the best possible intentions, will often attach an importance to bodily and temporal things, with which the strong believer will feel no sympathy. v32.—[I have meat, &c.] The meaning of our Lord's words in this verse must evidently be figurative. He had soul-nourishment and soul-sustenance of which His disciples were ignorant. He found such refreshment in doing good to ignorant souls that for the time present He did not feel bodily hunger. There is no necessity for supposing that our Lord referred to any miraculous supply of His bodily wants in this place. His words appear to me only to indicate that He found such delight and comfort in doing good to souls, that it was as good as meat and drink to Him. Many of His holiest servants in every age, I believe, could testify much the same. The joy and happiness of spiritual success has for the time lifted them above all bodily wants, and supplied the place of material meat and drink. I see no reason why this may not have been the case with our Lord. He had a body in all respects constituted like our own. The idea of some writers that these words show that our Lord's "thirst" was only simulated and pretended, seems to me utterly unworthy of notice. The application of the words which every believer ought to endeavour to make to himself, is familiar to every well-instructed Christian. He has supplies of spiritual nourishment and support, which are hidden and unknown to the world. These supplies he ought to use at all times, and specially in times of sorrow and trial. v33.—[Therefore said...one to another, &c.] These words seem to have been spoken privately, or whispered one to another, by the disciples. Their inability to put any but a carnal sense on their Master's words, has been already remarked. In slowness to see a spiritual sense in His language they do not appear at all unlike Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman. "What wonder is it," says Augustine, "if the woman could not understand our Lord, speaking about living water, when the disciples could not understand Him speaking about meat?" The original Greek of the expression "hath any man brought him ought to eat," is remarkable. There is a negative left out in our translation. It seems to show that the question of the woman, at verse 29, would have been better rendered, "Is this the Christ? Can this be the Christ?" v34.—[Jesus saith, &c.] The leading idea of this verse is, "that doing God's will, and finishing God's work, was so soul-refreshing and pleasant to our Lord that He found it equivalent to meat and drink." The Greek expression rendered "to do," and "to finish," would have been more literally rendered, "that I should do," and, "that I should finish." But there can be little doubt, as Winer remarks, that the language is intended to have an infinitive sense. Precisely the same construction is employed in another remarkable place, John 17:4. It seems matter of regret that our translators did not render that verse as they have rendered the verse before us. It should have been, "this is life eternal to know thee, &c." The "will of God," which it was Christ's meat to "do," must mean God's will, that salvation by faith in a Saviour should be proclaimed, and a door of mercy set wide open to the chief of sinners. "It is my meat," says our Lord, "to do that will, and to proclaim to every one with whom I speak that whosoever believeth on the Son shall not perish." The view that it simply means, "my meat is to obey God's commandments and do what He has told me to do," appears to me to fall short of the full meaning of the expression. The leading idea seems to me to be specially God's will about proclaiming salvation by Christ. Compare John 6:39-40. The "work of God," which it was Christ's meat to "finish," must mean that work of complete fulfilment of a Saviour's office which Christ came on earth to perform, and that obedience to God's law which He came to render. "It is my meat," says our Lord, "to be daily doing that great work which I came into the world to do for man's soul, to be daily preaching peace, and daily fulfilling all righteousness." Compare John 17:4. The utter unlikeness between Christ and all ministers of the Gospel who perform their duties in a mere prefunctory way, and care more for the world, and its pleasures or gains, than for saving souls, is strikingly brought out in this and the preceding verse. How many professing teachers of religion know nothing whatever of the spirit and habits of mind which our Lord here displays! It can never be said of hunting, shooting, ball-going, card-playing, farming clergymen, that it is their meat and drink to do God's will and finish His work! With what face will they meet Christ in the day of judgment? Cyril says, on this verse, "We learn from hence how great is the love of God towards men. He calls the conversion of lost people His meat." v35.—[Say not ye, &c.] This saying is interpreted in two different ways. Some think, as Origen, Rupertus, Brentius, Beza, Jansenius, Cyril, Lightfoot, Lampe, Suicer, and many others, that our Lord really meant that there were four literal months to harvest, at the time when He spoke; and that as the harvest began about May, He spoke in February. The sense would then be, "Ye say at this time of the year that it will be harvest in four months. But I tell you there is a spiritual harvest already before you, if you will only lift up your eyes and see it." Others think, as De Dieu, Maldonatus, Calovius, Whitby, Schottgen, Pearce, Tittman, Stier, Alford, Barnes, and Tholuck, that our Lord only meant that it was a proverbial saying among the Jews,— "four months between seed time and harvest," and that He did not mean the words to be literally taken. The sense would then be, "Ye have a common saying that it is four months from seed time to harvest. But I tell you that in spiritual works the harvest ripens far more quickly. Behold those Samaritans coming out already to hear the word, the very day that seed has been sown among them. The fields are already white for harvest." Either of the above views make good sense and good divinity. Yet on the whole I prefer the second view, viz.: that our Lord quoted a proverb. To suppose that He really meant that there were literally four months to pass away before harvest, appears to me to involve serious chronological difficulties. It necessitates the assumption that at least three quarters of a year had passed away since the passover, when our Lord purified the temple. (John 2:15, John 2:23.) No doubt this possibly may have been the case. But it does not appear to me probable.— In addition we must remember that our Lord, on another occasion, referred to a proverbial saying about the weather, beginning much as He does here, "Ye say." Matthew 16:3. Moreover, in this very passage He quotes a proverb about "one sowing and another reaping," within two verses. The expression therefore, "say not ye," seems to me to point to a proverbial saying much more than to a fact. The antithesis to it is the "I say," which immediately follows. Calvin says, "By this expression, do not ye say? Christ intended indirectly to point out how much more attentive the minds of men are to earthly than to heavenly things, for they burn with so intense a desire of harvest that they carefully reckon up months and days, while it is astonishing how drowsy and indolent they are in gathering the heavenly wheat." Cornelius á Lapide conjectures that the disciples had been talking to one another about the prospects of harvest, as they came to the well, and that our Lord knowing the conversation, referred to it by the words, "do not ye say?" [Lift up....eyes....look....fields....white....harvest.] There can be little doubt that this saying must be interpreted figuratively. The sense is, "There is a harvest of souls before you ready to be gathered in." The same figure is used elsewhere. (Matthew 9:37. Luke 10:2.) Some think, as Chrysostom, that when our Lord said, "Behold....lift up your eyes...look," He spoke with especial reference to the crowd of Samaritans whom He saw coming from the city to the well. If this be so, it is hard to suppose that He first began conversation with the woman at six o'clock in the evening. Others think, that our Lord spoke these words with reference to the whole world, and specially the Jewish nation, at the time of His ministry. They were so ready and prepared for the preaching of the Gospel, that they were like a field white for harvest. The expression, "lift up your eyes," is used elsewhere in Scripture, when mental attention is being called to something remarkable. See Isaiah 49:18; Isaiah 60:4; Genesis 13:14-15. I am disposed to think that both views are correct. Our Lord wished His disciples to notice that both at Samaria and elsewhere the minds of men were everywhere ready to receive the message of the Gospel in an unusual degree. Let them mark how willing the multitude was everywhere to listen to the truth. Let them know that everywhere, as in the apparently hopeless field of Samaria, they would find a harvest of souls ready to be reaped, if only they would be reapers. Chrysostom, on this verse, remarks, "Christ leads His disciples, as His custom is, from low things to high. Fields and harvests here express the great number of souls which are ready to receive the word. The eyes are both spiritual and bodily ones, for they saw a great multitude of Samaritans now approaching. This expectant crowd He calls, very suitably, white fields. For as the corn, when it grows white, is ready for harvest, so were those ready for salvation. But why does He not say all this in direct language? Because by making use of the objects around them He gave great vividness and power to His words, and also caused His discourse to be more pleasant and sink deeper into their memories." v36.—[He that reapeth, &c.] This verse seems to me to show that our Lord is speaking generally of the field of this world, and of the whole work which His apostles would have to do in it, not only in Samaria, but to the ends of the earth. The verse is a general promise for the encouragement of all labourers of Christ. The full meaning of it can hardly be brought out without a paraphrase. "The reaper of the spiritual harvest has a far more honourable and satisfactory office than the reaper of the natural harvest. He receives wages and gathers fruit not for this life only, but for the life to come. The wages that he receives are eternal wages, a crown of glory that fadeth not away. (1 Peter 5:4.) The fruit that he gathers is eternal fruit, souls plucked from destruction and saved for evermore." See Daniel 12:3; John 15:16, and 1 Corinthians 9:17. Burkitt, and several other writers, call attention to the fact that the harvestman's wages are much more than the wages of any other labourer, and hence draw the conclusion that no Christian will receive so glorious a reward as the man who labours to win souls to Christ. [That both he...soweth...reapeth...rejoice together.] These words appear to me to refer to the common joy that there will be in heaven among all who have laboured for Christ, when the whole harvest of saved souls is finally gathered in. The Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist, who sowed, will all rejoice together with the apostles, who reaped.— The results of the spiritual harvest are not like those of the natural harvest, temporal, but eternal, so that a day will come when all who have laboured for it in any way, either by sowing or reaping, will sit down and rejoice together to all eternity. Here in this world the sower sometimes does not live to see the fruit of his labour, and the reaper who gathers in the harvest rejoices alone. But work done in the spiritual harvest is eternal work, and consequently both sowers and reapers are sure at last to "rejoice together," and to see the fruit of their toil. Let it be noted, that in heaven there will at last be no jealousy and envy among Christ's labourers. Some will have been sowers and some will have been reapers. But all will have done that part of the work allotted to them, and all will finally "rejoice together." Envious feelings will be absorbed in common joy. Let it be noted, that in doing work for Christ, and labouring for souls, there are sowers as well as reapers. The work of the reaper makes far more show than the work of the sower. Yet it is perfectly clear that if there was no sowing there would be no reaping. It is of great importance to remember this. The Church is often disposed to give an excessive honour to Christ's reapers, and to overlook the labours of Christ's sowers. v37.—[Herein....that saying true, &c. &c.] Our Lord here quotes a proverbial saying, which appears to me to confirm the view I have already maintained, that the expression of the 35th verse, "Say not ye there are yet four months," &c., refers to a proverb. The phrase "herein" means literally, "in this," and seems to me to refer to the verse which immediately follows. "That common saying, one soweth and another reapeth, is made good in this way,— is fulfilled by this circumstance,— is verified in the following manner, viz., I sent you to reap," &c. The meaning of the proverb is plain. "It is a common saying among men that it often falls to one to sow the field and to another to reap it. The sower and the reaper are not always the same person." The frequent use of proverbial sayings in the New Testament deserves notice. It shows the value of proverbs, and the importance of teaching them to children and young people. A pointed proverb is often remembered when a long moral lesson is forgotten. v38.—[I sent you to reap, &c.] Our Lord here states the manner in which the proverbial saying of the preceding verse is true. He tells the apostles that they were sent to reap a spiritual harvest on which they had bestowed no labour. Other men had laboured, viz., the prophets of the Old Testament and John the Baptist. They had broken up the ground. They had sown the seed. The result of their labour was that the minds of men in the apostles' times were prepared to expect the Messiah, and the apostles had only to go forth and proclaim the glad tidings that Messiah was come. Pearce maintains the strange notion that our Lord, in this verse, only means, "I sent you away into the city to buy meat. While you were absent I sowed spiritual seed in the heart of a Samaritan woman. She is now gone to call others. These and many more will be the harvest which you will reap, without having bestowed any labour on it." This interpretation seems to me quite untenable. The past tense in this verse, "I have sent," is used, as a grammarian would say, proleptically. It means, "I do send you." Such a use of the past tense is common in Scripture, and especially when God speaks of a thing about to be done. With God there is no uncertainty. When He undertakes a thing, it may be regarded as done and finished, because in His counsels it is certain to be finished. Our Lord's meaning is, "I send you throughout Samaria, Galilee, and Judæa, to reap the fruit of the labours of the prophets and John the Baptist. They have sowed, and you have now only to reap." Some think, as Stier and Alford, that when our Lord said, "other men have laboured," He referred rather to Himself than to the prophets. I am unable to see this. It appears to me a forced and unnatural interpretation. I hold decidedly with Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Zwingle, Melancthon, Brentius, Lampe, and Poole, that it applies principally to the law and prophets.— "If the prophets were not the sowers," saith Augustine, "whence had that saying come to the woman, I know that Messias cometh?"— Origen says, "Did not Moses and Elias, the sowers, rejoice with the reapers, Peter, James, and John, when they saw the glory of the Son of God at the transfiguration?" Theophylact sees in this verse a strong argument against the heretical view of the Marcionites, Manichees, and others, that the New Testament is contrary to the Old. Here the prophets and apostles are spoken of together as labourers under one common Master, in one common field. The idea propounded by Bucer, that our Lord alludes here to the heathen philosophers as well as the prophets, seems to me unwarrantable and unsafe. [Considering what follows, could it be that in the immediate situation, our Lord was referring to the Samaritan woman as "the sower", and that He and the disciples would become "reapers" during the following two-day period? She had "sown" when she returned to the city, but, as the Samaritans themselves testify, they were not "reaped" until the days that followed: "Many more believed because of his own word; And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard [him] ourselves." See 1 Corinthians 3:6-9. v39.—[Many....Samaritans....believed.] About the exact nature of the belief mentioned here and in the 41st verse, we have no materials for forming an opinion. Whether it was only an intellectual belief that Christ was the Messiah, or whether it was that true faith of the heart which justifies a sinner before God, we are left to conjecture. The more probable opinion appears to be that it was true faith, though very weak and unintelligent, like that of the apostles themselves. It is a strong confirmation of this view, that when Philip, after the day of Pentecost, went down to Samaria and preached Christ, his preaching was received with joy, and many were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:5-12.) The Gospel was received without prejudice, and embraced at once as an acknowledged truth. [For....saying....woman... testified, &c.] These words show the importance of merely human testimony to Christ's Gospel. The word of one weak woman was made the instrumental means of belief to many souls. There was nothing remarkable in the woman's word. It contained no elaborate reasoning, and no striking eloquence. It was only a hearty, earnest testimony of a believing heart. Yet God was pleased to use it to the conversion of souls. We must never despise the use of means. If the woman had not spoken, the Samaritans would not have been converted.— Above all, we must never despise means because of their apparent weakness, feebleness, and inaptness to do good. God can make the weakest instruments powerful to pull down the strongholds of sin and Satan, just as He made David's sling and stone prevail over Goliath. Theophylact points out that the Samaritan woman's past wicked life was well known to her fellow-citizens, and that their attention must have been aroused by her publicly proclaiming that she had found One who knew her former life, although a stranger. They rightly concluded that He must be no common person. Melancthon remarks that the belief which resulted from the testimony of a woman in this case, is a clear proof that it is not absolutely necessary to have regular ministerial orders, in order to do good to souls, and that episcopal orders are not absolutely needful in order to give effect to the word when spoken. v40.—[So when...Samaritans...come...besought...tarry, &c.] The desire of the Samaritans for instruction is shown in this verse, and the willingness of Christ to assist inquirers is strikingly exhibited. He waits to be entreated. If we have Him not abiding with us, it is because we do not ask Him. The two disciples journeying to Emmaus would have missed a great privilege if they had not said, "Abide with us." (Luke 24:29.) Ferus on this verse remarks the wide difference between the Samaritans and the Gergesenes. The Gergesenes prayed our Lord to "depart" from them, the Samaritans to "tarry " with them. (Matthew 8:34.) [He abode...two days.] We can only suppose that these two days were spent in teaching and preaching the Gospel. One would like to know all that was thought and said in those two days. But it is an instance of the occasional "silences" of Scripture, which every attentive Bible-reader must have noticed. The first thirty years of our Lord's life at Nazareth,— the way in which Paul spent his time in Arabia,— and his employment during his two years' imprisonment in Cæsarea, are similar silences. (Galatians 1:17; Acts 24:27.) It is an interesting fact which has been observed by some writers, that at this very day, Nablous and its neighbourhood, occupying the site of Samaria and Sychar, are in a more flourishing and prosperous condition than almost any place in Palestine. While Capernaum, and Chorazin, and Bethsaida, which rejected Christ, have almost entirely passed away, Samaria, which believed and received Him, flourishes still. v41.—[Many more believed....own word.] This verse shows the sovereignty of God in saving souls. One is called in one way and another in another. Some Samaritans believed when they heard the woman testify. Others did not believe till they heard Christ Himself.— We must be careful that we do not bind down the Holy Ghost to one mode of operation. The experience of saved souls often differs widely. If people are brought to repentance and faith in Christ, we must not be stumbled because they are not all brought in the same way. Olshausen remarks on this verse, "Here is a rare instance in which the ministry of the Lord produced an awakening on a large scale. Ordinarily we find that a few individuals only were aroused by Him, and that these, like grains of seed, scattered here and there, became the germs of a new and higher order of things among the people at large." v42.—[Now we believe....not....thy saying.] The Greek words so rendered would be translated more literally, "Not any longer because of thy saying do we believe." Calvin thinks that the Greek word here rendered "saying," means literally, "talk or talkativeness," and that "the Samaritans appear to boast that they have now a stronger foundation than a woman's tongue." In the only other three places where it is used, it is translated "speech." (Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70; John 8:43.) [This indeed....Christ....Saviour....world.] The Greek words so rendered would be translated more literally, "This is the Saviour of the world, the Christ." The singular fulness of the confession made by these Samaritans deserves special notice. A more full declaration of our Lord's office as "Saviour of the world" is nowhere to be found in the Gospels. Whether the Samaritans clearly understood what they meant when they spoke of our Lord as "the Saviour," may be reasonably doubted. But that they saw with peculiar clearness a truth which the Jews were specially backward in seeing, that He had come to be a Redeemer for all mankind, and not for the "Jews" only, seems evident from the expression "the world." That such a testimony should have been borne to Christ, by a mixed race, of semi-heathen origin, like the Samaritans, and not by the Jews, is a remarkable instance of the grace of God. The inference drawn by Calvin from this verse, that "within two days the sense of the Gospel was more plainly taught by Christ at Samaria than he had hitherto taught it at Jerusalem," seems both unwarrantable and needless. Ought we not rather to fix our eyes on the difference between the Jews and Samaritans? Christ's teaching was the same, but the hearts of His hearers were widely different. The Jews were hardened. The Samaritans believed. Chemnitius, on this verse, thinks that an emphasis is meant to he laid on the Greek word rendered "indeed." Literally it is "truly." He thinks it was used of our Lord in contradistinction to the false Christs and Messiahs who had appeared before Him, as well as to the typical Messiahs and Saviours, such as the Judges. In leaving the passage we may well wonder that so many "Samaritans" should at once have believed on our Lord, when so few "Jews" ever believed. Our wonder may well be increased, when we consider that our Lord worked no miracle on this occasion, and that the word was the only instrument used to open the Samaritans' hearts.— We see, for one thing, the entire sovereignty of the grace of God. The last are often first and the first last. The most ignorant and unenlightened believe and are saved, while the most learned and enlightened continue unbelieving and are lost.— We see, for another thing, that it is not miracles and privileges, but grace, which converts souls. The Jews saw scores of mighty miracles worked by our Lord, and heard Him preach for weeks and months, and yet with a few rare exceptions remained impenitent and hardened. The Samaritans saw no miracles worked at all, and only had our Lord among them for two days, and yet many of them believed. If ever there was clear proof that the grace of the Holy Spirit is the chief thing needed in order to procure the conversion of souls, we have it in the verses we are now leaving. The allegorical and typical meanings which some writers assign to the Samaritan woman and her history, as related in this chapter, are hardly worth recounting. Some regard the woman as a type of the Jewish synagogue, slavishly bound to the five books of the law, and drawn finally by Christ to drink the living water of the Gospel.— Some regard the woman as a type of the Gentile nations, for five thousand years committing fornication with heathen idols, and at length purged by Christ, and casting away their empty water-pots in obedience to Christianity.— Some go even further, and regard the woman as a prophetical type of things yet to come. They consider her as a type of the Greek Church, which is yet to be brought into the true faith of Christ! These views appear to me at best only fanciful speculations, and more likely to do harm than good, by drawing men away from the plain practical lessons which the passage contains. FOUR great lessons stand out boldly on the face of this passage. Let us fix them in our memories, and use them continually as we journey through life. We learn, firstly, that the rich have afflictions as well as the poor. We read of a nobleman in deep anxiety because his son was sick. We need not doubt that every means of restoration was used that money could procure. But money is not almighty. The sickness increased, and the nobleman's son lay at the point of death. The lesson is one which needs to be constantly impressed on the minds of men. There is no more common, or more mischievous error, than to suppose that the rich have no cares. The rich are as liable to sickness as the poor; and have a hundred anxieties beside, of which the poor know nothing at all. Silks and satins often cover very heavy hearts. The dwellers in palaces often sleep more uneasily than the dwellers in cottages. Gold and silver can lift no man beyond the reach of trouble. They may shut out debt and rags, but they cannot shut out care, disease, and death. The higher the tree, the more it is shaken by storms. The broader its branches, the greater is the mark which it exposes to the tempest. David was a happier man when he kept his father's sheep at Bethlehem, than when he dwelt as a king at Jerusalem, and governed the twelve tribes of Israel. Let the servant of Christ beware of desiring riches. They are certain cares, and uncertain comforts. Let him pray for the rich, and not envy them. How hardly shall a rich man enter the kingdom of God! Above all, let him learn to be content with such things as he has. He only is truly rich, who has treasure in heaven. We learn, secondly, in this passage, that sickness and death come to the young as well as to the old. We read of a son sick unto death, and a father in trouble about him. We see the natural order of things inverted. The elder is obliged to minister to the younger, and not the younger to the elder. The child draws nigh to the grave before the parent, and not the parent before the child. The lesson is one which we are all slow to learn. We are apt to shut our eyes to plain facts, and to speak and act, as if young people, as a matter of course, never died when young. And yet the grave-stones in every churchyard would tell us, that few people out of a hundred ever live to be fifty years old, while many never grow up to man's estate at all. The first grave that ever was dug on this earth, was that of a young man. The first person who ever died, was not a father but a son. Aaron lost two sons at a stroke. David, the man after God's own heart, lived long enough to see three children buried. Job was deprived of all his children in one day. These things were carefully recorded for our learning. He that is wise, will never reckon confidently on life. We never know what a day may bring forth. The strongest and fairest are often cut down and hurried away in a few hours, while the old and feeble linger on for many years. The only true wisdom is to be always prepared to meet God, to put nothing off which concerns eternity, and to live like men ready to depart at any moment. So living, it matters little whether we die young or old. Joined to the Lord Jesus, we are safe in any event. We learn, thirdly, from this passage, what benefits affliction can confer on the soul. We read, that anxiety about a son led the nobleman to Christ, in order to obtain help in time of need. Once brought into Christ's company, he learned a lesson of priceless value. In the end, "he believed, and his whole house." All this, be it remembered, hinged upon the son's sickness. If the nobleman's son had never been ill, his father might have lived and died in his sins. Affliction is one of God's medicines. By it He often teaches lessons which would be learned in no other way. By it He often draws souls away from sin and the world, which would otherwise have perished everlastingly. Health is a great blessing, but sanctified disease is a greater. Prosperity and worldly comfort, are what all naturally desire; but losses and crosses are far better for us, if they lead us to Christ. Thousands at the last day, will testify with David, and the nobleman before us, "It is good for me that I have been afflicted." (Psalms 119:71.) Let us beware of murmuring in the time of trouble. Let us settle it firmly in our minds, that there is a meaning, a needs-be, and a message from God, in every sorrow that falls upon us. There are no lessons so useful as those learned in the school of affliction. There is no commentary that opens up the Bible so much as sickness and sorrow. "No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth peaceable fruit." (Hebrews 12:11.) The resurrection morning will prove, that many of the losses of God's people were in reality eternal gains. We learn, lastly, from this passage, that Christ's word is as good as Christ's presence. We read, that Jesus did not come down to Capernaum to see the sick young man, but only spoke the word, "Thy son liveth." Almighty power went with that little sentence. That very hour the patient began to amend. Christ only spoke, and the cure was done. Christ only commanded, and the deadly disease stood fast. The fact before us is singularly full of comfort. It gives enormous value to every promise of mercy, grace, and peace, which ever fell from Christ's lips. He that by faith has laid hold on some word of Christ, has got his feet upon a rock. What Christ has said, He is able to do; and what He has undertaken, He will never fail to make good. The sinner who has really reposed his soul on the word of the Lord Jesus, is safe to all eternity. He could not be safer, if he saw the book of life, and his own name written in it. If Christ has said, "Him that cometh to me, I will in nowise cast out," and our hearts can testify, "I have come," we need not doubt that we are saved. In the things of this world, we say that seeing is believing. But in the things of the Gospel, believing is as good as seeing. Christ's word is as good as man's deed. He of whom Jesus says in the Gospel, "He liveth," is alive for evermore, and shall never die. And now let us remember that afflictions, like that of the nobleman, are very common. They will probably come to our door one day. Have we known anything of bearing affliction? Would we know where to turn for help and comfort when our time comes? Let us fill our minds and memories betimes with Christ's words. They are not the words of man only, but of God. The words that he speaks are spirit and life. (John 6:63.) ================== Notes— v43.—[After two days.] The Greek words here would be more literally rendered, "After the two days," i. e., after the two days mentioned in the preceding verse. [Departed thence.] Quesnel remarks, "It is an instance of self-denial which is very uncommon, to leave those who respect and applaud us, that we may go to preach among others from whom we have reason to expect a quite different treatment." v44.—[For Jesus himself testified....his own country.] This verse has much perplexed commentators. What is meant by the expression, "His own country"? If it means Galilee, as most suppose, how are we to reconcile it with the words which follow, "the Galileans received him"?— And again, what is the connection between the verse before us and the one which precedes it? Why should our Lord go into Galilee, when it was a place where He had no honour? And finally, how are we to reconcile the statement that our Lord had no "honour" in Galilee with the undeniable fact that nearly all His disciples and adherents were Galileans? All these points have given rise to much speculation and conjecture. (a.) Some, as Origen and Maldonatus, get over the difficulty in the following manner. They say that the words, "His own country," must mean Judζa, and Bethlehem, where Christ was born. The sense will then be, "after two days Jesus departed from Samaria, and went into Galilee, and not into Judζa, because in Judζa He received no honour, and was not believed." This solution seems to me unnatural and unsatisfactory. Our Lord's going to Galilee was a premeditated journey, and not a sudden plan decided on during His stay at Samaria. Beside this, there is no proof whatever that our Lord was not received and believed in Judζa. On the contrary, He "made and baptized" so many disciples in Judζa, that it attracted the notice of the Pharisees, and made it necessary for Him to "depart into Galilee." (b.) Augustine holds that "His own country" means Galilee, and seems to attach the following sense to the verse, "And yet Jesus testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country, for when he came into Galilee no one believed on Him, except the nobleman and his house." This appears to me a far-fetched and unnatural interpretation. Tittman and Bloomfield take much the same view, and render it, "Although Jesus had testified," &c. (c.) Chrysostom and Euthymius think that "His own country" means Capernaum. This interpretation also seems to me improbable. We find Capernaum elsewhere called our Lord's "own city," but nowhere else "His own country." (See Matthew 9:1.) (d.) Theophylact suggests that the verse before us is inserted in order to explain "why our Lord did not always abide and continue in Galilee, but only came there at intervals. The reason was that He received no honour there." This also seems to me an unsatisfactory interpretation. (e.) Alford says, "The only true and simple view is, that this verse refers to the next following, and indeed to the whole narrative which it introduces. It stands as a preliminary explanation of 'Except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe,' and indicates the contrast between the Samaritans, who believed on Him for His own word, and His own countrymen, who only received Him because they had seen the miracles which He did at Jerusalem." This view of the text seems to me as far-fetched and unsatisfactory as any of those I have mentioned. Moreover I doubt much whether the Greek word rendered "for," is ever used in the sense Alford puts on it, in the New Testament. (f.) The following explanation appears to me by far the most probable one. The words, "His own country," mean neither Galilee nor Judζa, but "Nazareth." The sense is, "Jesus departed from Samaria into Galilee, but not to His own country Nazareth, because He testified, both now and on other occasions, that a prophet has no honour in his own country."— In confirmation of the view I have maintained, it deserves notice, that in the six places where the Greek word here rendered "country" is found in the Gospels, beside the one before us, it always means the town of Nazareth, and not the district in which Nazareth is situated. (Matthew 13:54, Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:1, Mark 6:4; Luke 4:23-24.) The view I have supported is that of Cyril, Calvin, Calovius, Lampe, Poole, De Dieu, Pearce, Doddridge, Dyke, and Olshausen. Our Lord's use of a proverb in this verse is again worthy of notice. It is another proof of the value of proverbial sayings. The lesson of the proverb is a very instructive one. It is one of the most melancholy proofs of man's fallen and corrupt state, that he never values what he is familiar with, and that familiarity breeds contempt. Ministers of the Gospel discover this by painful experience, when they have resided many years in the same parish, and ministered long in the same congregation. Those who have the most abundant supply of Gospel privileges are often the people who value them least. "The nearer the church the further from God," is often found to be literally true. Those who live furthest off, and are obliged to deny themselves most in order to hear the Gospel, are often the very persons who take most pains to hear it. One grain of comfort, however, may be extracted from this painful verse. A minister must not despair, and accuse himself of unfaithfulness, because the Gospel he preaches is not honoured in his own congregation, and many remain hardened and unbelieving, after he has preached to them many years. Let him remember that he is sharing his Master's lot. He is drinking the very cup of which Christ drank. Christ had no honour in Nazareth, and faithful ministers have often less honour among their own people than they have elsewhere. Pelican thinks that our Lord "testified" the truth contained in this verse in reply to some one who asked Him why He did not go to Nazareth. I prefer the opinion that it simply means our Lord "always did testify, and made a practice of testifying." v45.—[Galilζans received him.] The word "received" probably means no more than that they "received Him with respect and reverence," as One who was no common person. There is no warrant for supposing that they all received Him with true faith, and experimentally believed on Him as the Saviour of their souls. [Having seen....things....Jerusalem....feast.] This expression confirms the view already maintained (John 2:23,) that our Lord did many other miracles at Jerusalem at the first passover, when He was there, beside casting the buyers and sellers out of the temple. It is probable that the miracles recorded in the four Gospels are only a selection out of the number that Christ worked. Here, as elsewhere, we see the special use of miracles. They served to arrest men's attention, and gave the impression that He who wrought them deserved a hearing. The Galileans were ready to receive Christ respectfully, because they had seen His miracles. [They also went....feast.] This sentence is a useful proof of the universality of the Jewish custom of attending the great feasts at Jerusalem, and especially the feast of the Passover. Even those who lived furthest off from Jerusalem, in Galilee, made a point of going to the Passover. It serves to show the publicity of our Lord's ministry, both in life and death. When He was crucified at the Passover, the event happened in the presence of myriads of witnesses from every part of the world. The overruling providence of God ordered things so that the facts of Christ's life and death could never be denied. "This thing was not done in a corner." (Acts 26:26.) v46.—[Jesus came again....Cana.] The circumstance of our Lord going twice to Cana may be accounted for by remembering the fact that one of His disciples, "Nathanael," belonged to Cana, and that His mother, Mary, in all probability had relatives there. (See note on John 2:1.) [A certain nobleman.] The Greek word rendered "nobleman" is only found here in this sense, as a substantive, in the New Testament. The marginal reading, "courtier or ruler," hardly makes it more clear. Some have conjectured that the nobleman must have been some one attached to Herod's court, and is therefore called "a royal person," which is the literal meaning of the word. Some, as Luther, Chemnitius, Lightfoot, and Pearce, have also conjectured that "Chuza, Herod's steward," whose wife Joanna became one of our Lord's disciples, and "ministered unto Him," (Luke 8:3,) must have been this nobleman. This is no doubt possible, and would be an interesting fact if it could be proved. But there is no authority for it, except conjecture. Lightfoot adds a conjecture, that if not Chuza it might have been Manaen. (Acts 13:1.) The rarity of a nobleman and a person connected with a royal court seeking Christ under any circumstances, is observed by Glassius and others. It shows us that Christ will have trophies of the power of His grace out of every rank, class, and condition. In the first chapter of John's Gospel we see fishermen converted; in the third, a self-righteous Pharisee; in the beginning of the fourth, a fallen Samaritan woman; and in the end, a nobleman out of a king's court. Pearce thinks that the nobleman was one of the class called Herodians. (Matthew 22:16.) [Son was sick at Capernaum.] We should always notice the number and greatness of miracles which our Lord worked at Capernaum, and the dignity of the persons at whose instance they were worked. Here He healed the Centurion's servant. (Matthew 8:5.) Here, in all probability, He restored to life the daughter of Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue. (Mark 5:22.) And here, in the present instance, He healed the nobleman's son. Three distinct and leading classes had, each of them, a mighty miracle wrought among them. The Centurion was a Gentile soldier. The ruler of the synagogue was a Jew of high ecclesiastical position. The nobleman was connected with the highest civil authorities. The consequence no doubt was that the name and power of Christ became known to every leading family in Capernaum. No wonder that our Lord says, "Thou Capernaum that art exalted unto heaven." (Matthew 11:23.) No place was so privileged as this city. The idea entertained by some that this "nobleman" was the same as the Centurion in Matthew 8:5, and that the miracle here recorded is only the same miracle differently reported, seems to me entirely destitute of foundation. The details of the two miracles are entirely different. The miracle before us is nowhere else reported in the Gospels. v47.—[Heard that Jesus was come, &c.] This verse shows how widely spread was the fame of the miracle wrought at Cana upon the occasion of our Lord's former visit, and how great was the report of our Lord's miracles at Jerusalem, brought back by the Galileans who went to the feast. In no other way can we account for the nobleman going to our Lord and beseeching Him to come and heal his son. Our Lord must have got the reputation of being One who was both able and willing to work such cures. Musculus remarks on this verse, how much more love descends than ascends. In all the Gospels we never read of any sons or daughters coming to Christ on behalf of their parents. Dyke observes, "Some crosses drive men to Christ, especially in our children. This was the cross that subdued Egypt: and to great men, such as this ruler, who have much to leave their children, this cross is the greatest." v48.—[Then said Jesus, Except ye see, &c.] Our Lord in this verse appears to refer to the common desire expressed by the Jews to see miracles and signs, as a proof of His Messiahship. "Cannot you believe unless you actually see with your own eyes a miracle worked? Is your faith so small, that except you see something you cannot believe?"— No doubt our Lord knew the heart of the man before Him. He wished to test his faith, and to draw out from him more earnest desires after the mercy that he wanted. The resemblance between our Lord's first answer to the nobleman and His first answer to the woman of Canaan, who came to Him about her daughter, deserve comparison. (Matthew 15:24.) Chrysostom remarks, "Christ's meaning is, Ye have not yet the right faith, but still feel towards me as only a prophet. He rebuketh the state of mind with which the nobleman had come to Him, because that before a miracle he believed not strongly. Thus too He drew him on the more to belief.— That the nobleman came and entreated was nothing wonderful, for parents in their great affection are wont to resort to, and talk with physicians. But that he came without any strong purpose appears from this, that he only came to Christ when Christ came into Galilee, whereas, if he had firmly believed, he would not have hesitated, when his child was at the point of death, to go into Judζa." Glassius thinks that our Lord, in these words, intends to contrast the faith of the Samaritans with the unbelief of the Galileans. The Samaritans believed without having seen any signs or wonders at all. Chemnitius thinks that our Lord, in this verse, spoke with special reference to the state of mind in which He found the inhabitants of Cana upon His second visit. He thinks that He found them aroused to a state of expectation and curiosity, by His miracle of changing water into wine, but still destitute of any real saving faith. Poole compares the nobleman to Naaman, who had faith enough to come to Elisha's door to be healed of his leprosy, but was stumbled because Elisha did not put his hand on the diseased place, but only sent him a message. (2 Kings 5:11.) v49.—[The nobleman saith, etc.] This verse shows the earnestness of the nobleman's desire for relief, quickened and sharpened by the apparent rebuff contained in our Lord's reply to his first application. Yet it was a saying exhibiting much ignorance. It is clear that he did not discover what our Lord hinted at, that possibly he might be helped without His coming down to see his sick son. He neither denies the truth of our Lord's words, nor enters into argument. He only knew that he felt in grievous distress, and begged our Lord to "come down ere his child died." That our Lord could heal him he did not doubt. But that He could heal him at a distance, without even seeing him, was something that he could not yet understand. Chrysostom says, "Observe how these very words show the weakness of the man. When he ought, after Christ had rebuked his state of mind, to have imagined something great concerning Him, even if he did not before, listen how he drags along the ground! He speaks as though Christ could not raise his son after death, and as though He knew not in what state the child was." Brentius remarks that the nobleman did not bring to Christ faith, but merely a spark of faith. v50.—[Jesus saith unto him, &c.] Three things are very deserving of notice in this verse. (a.) We should observe our Lord's marvelous kindness and compassion. He takes no notice of the nobleman's weak faith and slowness of understanding. He freely grants his request, and gives his son life and health without delay. (b.) We should observe our Lord's almighty power. He simply speaks the words, "Thy son liveth," and at once a sick person, at several miles' distance, is cured and made well. He spake and it was done. (c.) We should observe, not least, the unhesitating confidence which the nobleman reposed in our Lord's power. He asked no more questions after he heard the words, "Thy son liveth." At once he believed that all would be well, and went his way. Cyril observes on this verse, that our Lord here healed two persons at one time by the same words, "He brought the nobleman's mind to faith, and delivered the body of the young man from disease." Chrysostom remarks, "What can be the reason why in the case of the Centurion Christ undertook voluntarily to come and heal, while here, though invited, he came not? Because in the case of the Centurion faith had been perfected, and therefore He undertook to go, that we might learn the right-mindedness of the man; but here the nobleman was imperfect. When therefore he continually urged Him, saying, Come down, and knew not clearly that even when absent He could heal, He showeth that even this was possible unto Him, in order that this man might gain, from His not going, that knowledge which the Centurion had of himself." Bishop Hall observes, "The ruler's request was, Come and heal. Christ's answer was, 'Go thy way: thy son liveth.' Our merciful Saviour meets those in the end whom He crosses in the way. How sweetly doth He correct our prayers; and while He doth not give us what we asked, gives us better than we asked." v51.—[As he was going down.] The relative positions of Cana and Capernaum are not precisely known at the present day. The exact site of Capernaum is matter of dispute among travelers and geographers. All we can glean from the expression before us is, that Cana was probably in the hill country, and Capernaum on the lake of Galilee. Hence a person leaving Cana for Capernaum would "go down." [Thy son liveth.] The meaning of this expression must evidently be, "Thy son is so much better, that he is comparatively alive from the dead. He was as one dead. He is now alive." v52.—[Then inquired he the hour.] This man's mind seems at once to have laid hold on the nature of the miracle, and to have acknowledged the power of Christ's word. [He began to amend.] The Greek expression so rendered is a very peculiar one, and only found in this place. It is literally, "Had himself better, in more elegant order."— Let it be noted, that here, as elsewhere, we find an expression which is only used once in the New Testament. This shows that it is no valid argument against the inspiration of any text or passage, that it contains Greek expressions nowhere else used. [Yesterday at the seventh hour.] This expression has been differently interpreted— according to the view which commentators take of John's mode of reckoning time. Those who think that he numbered hours in the same way that we do, maintain that it means, "at seven o'clock in the evening." Those, on the contrary, who maintain that John observed the Jewish mode of computation, say that it means "at one o'clock in the afternoon." I have already given it as my decided opinion, that John observes the Jewish mode of reckoning time; and I therefore hold with those who think, that "the seventh hour" means one o'clock. The arguments of those who say that, if it had been one o'clock, the nobleman would never have taken till the next day to reach home, appear to my mind quite inconclusive. For one thing, we know nothing accurately of the distance from Cana to Capernaum.— For another thing, we forget the slow rate at which people travel in Eastern countries, on bad roads, in a hilly country.— For another thing, it is entirely an assumption to suppose that the nobleman had nothing else to do at Cana, when he came to Jesus about his son. For anything we know, he had, as a nobleman, business of various kinds, which made it impossible for him to reach home in the afternoon after Jesus had said, "Thy son liveth."— Last, but not least, it seems hardly probable that the nobleman would have asked our Lord to come down to Capernaum at so late an hour as seven o'clock in the evening; or would have set off on his own return at that hour, and met his servants in the night. [The fever left him.] Trench remarks, that the words seem to indicate, that there was not merely an abatement of the fever, but that it suddenly forsook him. Compare Luke 4:39. v53.—[Himself believed.] Beda remarks, on the matter of the nobleman's believing, that "there are three degrees of faith,— the beginning, the increase, and the perfection. There was a beginning in this man, when he first came to Christ; an increase, when our Lord told him that his son lived; and a perfection, when he found him to have recovered at that very time." [His whole house.] This expression probably means, "his whole family,"— including children and servants. We have no right whatever to exclude children from the sense of the words. Remembering this, we shall better understand what is meant, when it is written, Paul baptized "the household of Stephanas:" or when it is related, that the house of Lydia was baptized. (1 Corinthians 1:16; Acts 16:15.) There seems no reason for doubting that the nobleman, from this time forth, became a thorough, true-hearted, believer in Christ. If, as some suppose, he is the same as Chuza, Herod's steward, we may perhaps date the conversion of Joanna his wife, to the period of the verse now before us. Bishop Hall remarks on this verse, "Great men cannot want clients. Their example sways some: their authority more. They cannot go to either of the other worlds alone. In vain do they pretend power over others, who labour not to draw their families to God." v54.—[The second miracle that Jesus did.] The plain meaning of these words is, that our Lord had worked no other miracle in Galilee before this one, excepting that of turning the water into wine at Cana. It appears likely that many of our Lord's earliest miracles were wrought in Judζa and Jerusalem; although we have no record of them, except in the second chapter of John's Gospel. (John 2:23.) This fact is note-worthy, because it throws light on the wickedness of the Jews at Jerusalem, where at last Christ was condemned and crucified. Chrysostom remarks, "The word 'second' is not added without cause, but to exalt yet more the praises of the Samaritans, by showing that even when a second miracle had been wrought, they who beheld it had not yet reached so high as those who had not seen one." Origen says, "Mystically the two journeys of Christ into Galilee signify His two advents. At the first He makes us His guests at supper, and gives us wine to drink. At the second He raises up the nobleman's son at the point of death,—i. e., the Jewish people, who after the fulness of the Gentiles attain salvation. The sick son is the Jewish people fallen from the true religion.— This is patristic interpretation! Allegorical expositions like this destroy the whole value of God's word. At this rate the Bible may be made to mean anything. Chemnitius thinks, that with this chapter ends the first year of our Lord's public ministry, and gives a useful summary of the principal events comprehended within it. These are the Lord's baptism,— the calling of the first disciples,— the miracle at Cana,— the miracle of casting out of the temple the buyers and sellers,— the conversation with Nicodemus,— the tarrying in Judζa and baptizing,— the testimony of John the Baptist,— the journey through Samaria,— the arrival in Galilee,— and the healing of the nobleman's son. Epiphanius, he observes, calls it the "acceptable year" of our Lord's ministry, because it was the most quiet and peaceful. Bengel, in closing this chapter, observes, that John seems to arrange our Lord's miracles in threes. He relates three in Galilee,— the first at the marriage in Cana, the second on the nobleman's son, the third in feeding five thousand men (John 6:1-71.);— three in Judζa,— the first at Bethesda at pentecost (ch. 5.), the second after the feast of tabernacles, on the blind man (ch. 9.), the third on Lazarus before the passover (ch. 11.).— So also after the ascension, he describes three appearances of our Lord to His disciples. (John 21:14.) Dyke observes how God keeps account of all the gracious means He affords men for their good. "The second miracle is specified to aggravate the infidelity of the Jews; that though Christ had now done another and a second miracle, yet only the ruler and his household believed. Two miracles wrought, and one household converted! God takes account not only how many men are won by a sermon, (Acts 2:41,) but of how many sermons are lost by men." WE have in this passage one of the few miracles of Christ, which John records. Like every other miracle in this Gospel, it is described with great minuteness and particularity. And like more than one other miracle it leads on to a discourse full of singularly deep instruction. We are taught, for one thing, in this passage, what misery sin has brought into the world. We read of a man who had been ill for no less than thirty-eight years! For eight-and-thirty weary summers and winters he had endured pain and infirmity. He had seen others healed at the waters of Bethesda, and going to their homes rejoicing. But for him there had been no healing. Friendless, helpless, and hopeless, he lay near the wonder-working waters, but derived no benefit from them. Year after year passed away, and left him still uncured. No relief or change for the better seemed likely to come, except from the grave. When we read of cases of sickness like this, we should remember how deeply we ought to hate sin! Sin was the original root, and cause, and fountain of every disease in the world. God did not create man to be full of aches, and pains, and infirmities. These things are the fruits of the Fall. There would have been no sickness, if there had been no sin. No greater proof can be shown of man's inbred unbelief, than his carelessness about sin. "Fools," says the wise man, "make a mock at sin." (Proverbs 14:9.) Thousands delight in things which are positively evil, and run greedily after that which is downright poison. They love that which God abhors, and dislike that which God loves. They are like the madman, who loves his enemies and hates his friends. Their eyes are blinded. Surely if men would only look at hospitals and infirmaries, and think what havoc sin has made on this earth, they would never take pleasure in sin as they do. Well may we be told to pray for the coming of God's kingdom! Well may we be told to long for the second advent of Jesus Christ! Then, and not till then, shall there be no more curse on the earth, no more suffering, no more sorrow, and no more sin. Tears shall be wiped from the faces of all who love Christ's appearing, when their Master returns. Weakness and infirmity shall all pass away. Hope deferred shall no longer make hearts sick. There will be no chronic invalids and incurable cases, when Christ has renewed this earth. We are taught, for another thing, in this passage, how great is the mercy and compassion of Christ. He "saw" the poor sufferer lying in the crowd. Neglected, overlooked, and forgotten in the great multitude, he was observed by the all-seeing eye of Christ. "He knew" full well, by His Divine knowledge, how long he had been "in that case," and pitied him. He spoke to him unexpectedly, with words of gracious sympathy. He healed him by miraculous power, at once and without tedious delay, and sent him home rejoicing. This is just one among many examples of our Lord Jesus Christ's kindness and compassion. He is full of undeserved, unexpected, abounding love towards man. "He delighteth in mercy." (Micah 7:18.) He is far more ready to save than man is to be saved, far more willing to do good than man is to receive it. No one ever need be afraid of beginning the life of a true Christian, if he feels disposed to begin. Let him not hang back and delay, under the vain idea that Christ is not willing to receive him. Let him come boldly, and trust confidently. He that healed the cripple at Bethesda is still the same. We are taught, lastly, the lesson that recovery from sickness ought to impress upon us. That lesson is contained in the solemn words which our Savior addressed to the man He had cured: "Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." Every sickness and sorrow is the voice of God speaking to us. Each has its peculiar message. Happy are they who have an eye to see God's hand, and an ear to hear His voice, in all that happens to them. Nothing in this world happens by chance. And as it is with sickness, so it is with recovery. Renewed health should send us back to our post in the world with a deeper hatred of sin, a more thorough watchfulness over our own ways, and a more constant purpose of mind to live to God. Far too often the excitement and novelty of returning health tempt us to forget the vows and intentions of the sick-room. There are spiritual dangers attending a recovery! Well would it be for us all after illness to engrave these words on our hearts, "Let me sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto me." Let us leave the passage with grateful hearts, and bless God that we have such a Gospel and such a Savior as the Bible reveals.— Are we ever sick and ill? Let us remember that Christ sees, and knows, and can heal as He thinks fit.— Are we ever in trouble? Let us hear in our trouble the voice of God, and learn to hate sin more. ================== Notes— v1.—[After this.] Literally translated, this would be, "after these things." Some think that when John is telling some event which follows immediately after the last thing narrated, he uses the expression, "after this thing" (as John 2:12), but that when there has been an interval of time he uses the expression, "after these things."— If this be correct, we must suppose that some space of time elapsed between the healing of the nobleman's son and the visit to Jerusalem, recorded in this chapter. [A feast of the Jews.] There is nothing to show what feast this was. Most commentators think it was the passover. Many however think it was the feast of pentecost. Some few say it was the feast of tabernacles, some the feast of purim, and some the feast of the dedication. Each view has its advocates, and the question will probably never be settled. An argument in favour of the passover is the fact that none of the five Jewish feasts were so regularly attended by devout Jews as the passover. An argument against it is the fact that on three other occasions, when the feast of the passover is mentioned in John, he carefully specifies it by name; and one would naturally expect that it would be named here. The matter is really of no peculiar importance. In one point of view only it is interesting.— If the "feast" was the passover, it proves that there were four passovers during the period of our Lord's ministry on earth. John mentions three by name,— beside this "feast." (John 2:23; John 6:4; John 12:1.) This would make it certain that our Lord's ministry lasted three full years, or at any rate must have begun with a passover, and ended with a passover.— If the "feast" was not the passover, we have no proof that His ministry lasted longer than between two and three years. (See notes on John 2:13.) The expression, "a feast of the Jews," is one of many incidental evidences that John wrote specially for the use of Gentile converts, and that he thought it needful for their benefit to explain Jewish ordinances. [Jesus went up.] The frequency of our Lord's attendance at Jewish feasts, and the respect He showed for Mosaic ordinances, should always be noticed. They were appointed by God, and as long as they lasted, He gave them honour. It is an important proof to us, that the unworthiness of ministers is no reason for neglecting God's ordinances, such as baptism and the Lord's Supper. The benefit we receive from ordinances and sacraments does not depend on the character of those who administer them, but on the state of our own souls. The priests and officers of the Temple, in our Lord's time, were probably very unworthy persons, but that did not prevent our Lord honouring the Temple ordinances and feasts.— It does not however follow from this that we should be justified in habitually going to hear false doctrine preached. Our Lord never did this. Let it be noted, that none of the four Gospel-writers speak so much of our Lord's doings in Judæa and Jerusalem as John does. v2.—[There is at Jerusalem.] These words, it is thought, show that Jerusalem was yet standing, and not taken and destroyed by the Romans, when John wrote his Gospel. Otherwise, it is argued, he would have said, "There was at Jerusalem." [By the sheep-market a pool.] Nothing certain is known about this pool, or its precise situation. Modern travellers have professed to point out where it was. But there is little ground for determining the matter, except conjecture and tradition. After all the changes of eighteen centuries, points like these are almost incapable of a satisfactory solution. There is no place in the world, perhaps, where it is so difficult to settle anything decidedly about ancient buildings and sites as Jerusalem. Some propose to render the expression "sheep-market'' the "sheepgate," because of Neh 3:1. But we really have no certain ground for either expression. [Called in the Hebrew tongue, Bethesda.] The word "Bethesda," according to Cruden, means "house of effusion," or "house of pity or mercy." It is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. The mention of the "Hebrew tongue," shows again that John did not write for Jews so much as Gentiles. [Having five porches.] These porches were probably covered arcades, piazzas, colonnades, or verandas, open at one side to the air, but protected against the sun or rain over-head. In a hot country like Palestine, such buildings are very necessary. v3.—[In these lay a great multitude.] The context seems to show that the multitude were assembled at this particular feast in this place, expecting a certain miracle to be wrought, which only took place at this particular time of the year. [Impotent folk.] This expression evidently does not mean paralytic people, but merely people who were sick and ill. The mention of "blind, halt, withered," shows this. [Moving of the water.] This "moving" must have been something that could be seen and observed by persons standing by or looking on. There was no virtue or healing element in the water, until the movement took place. v4.—[For an angel went down, &c.] The thing we are here told is very curious. There is nothing like it in the Bible. Josephus, the Jewish writer, does not mention it. The simplest view is that it was a standing miracle wrought once every year, as Cyril says, or at any rate at some special season only, by God's appointment, to keep the Jews in mind of the wonderful works that had been done for them in time past, and to remind them that the God of miracles was unchanged.— But when this singular miracle first began,— on what occasion it began,— why we never hear anything else about it,— in what way the angel came down,— are questions which cannot be answered.— That angels did interpose in a miraculous manner in the days of the New Testament, is perfectly clear from many instances in the Gospels and Acts. That the Jews themselves had strong faith in the interposition of angels on certain occasions, is clear from the account of the vision of Zacharias, when we are simply told that the people "perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple." (Luke 1:22.) That from the days of Malachi, when inspiration ceased, God may have seen it good to keep up in the Jewish mind a faith in unseen things, by the grant of a standing miracle, is a very probable opinion. The wisest course is to take the passage as we find it, and to believe though we cannot explain. All other attempts to get over the difficulties of the passage are thoroughly unsatisfactory. To condemn the passage as not genuine, is a lazy way of cutting the knot, and not at all clearly warranted by the authority of manuscripts.— To say that John only used the popular language of the Jews in describing the miracle, and did not really believe it himself, is, to say the least, irreverent and profane.— To suppose, as Hammond and others have done, that the "angel" only means a common human "messenger" sent by the priests, and that the healing efficacy of the water arose from the blood of the many sacrifices which drained into the pool of Bethesda at the passover feast;— or to suppose, as others, that Bethesda was a pool where sacrifices were washed before they were offered, are all entirely gratuitous assumptions, and do not get over the main difficulty. There is no proof that the blood of the sacrifices did drain into the pool. There is no proof that the blood would give the water any healing virtue. There is no proof, as Lightfoot shows, that sacrifices were washed at all. (See Lightfoot's Exeroitations on John, on this passage.) Moreover, this hypothesis would not account for only one person being healed every time the waters were "troubled," or for John's mention of the "angel troubling" the waters. Here, as in many other instances, the simplest view, and the one which involves the fewest difficulties, is to take the passage as we find it, and to interpret it as narrating an actual fact,— viz.: a standing miracle which actually was literally wrought at a certain season, and perhaps every year. After all there is no more real difficulty in the account before us, than in the history of our Lord's temptation in the wilderness, the various cases of Satanic possession, or the release of Peter from prison by an angel. Once admit the existence of angels, their ministry on earth, and the possibility of their interposition to carry out God's designs, and there is nothing that ought to stumble us in the passage. The true secret of some of the objections to it, is the modern tendency to regard all miracles as useless lumber, which must be thrown overboard, if possible, and cast out of the Sacred Narrative on every occasion. Against this tendency we must watch and be on our guard. Rollock remarks, "The Jewish people at this time was in a state of great confusion, and the presence of God was in great measure withdrawn from it. The prophets whom God had been accustomed to raise up for extraordinary purposes, were no longer given to the Jews. Therefore God, that He might not appear altogether to cast off His people, was willing to heal some miraculously, and in an extraordinary way, in order that He might testify to the world that the nation was not yet entirely rejected." Brentius and Calvin say much the same. Poole thinks that this miracle only began a little before the birth of Christ, "as a figure of him being about to come, who was to be a fountain opened to the house of David." Lightfoot takes the same view. [Troubled the water.] This means, no doubt, "disturbed, agitated, stirred up," the water of the pool. There is no reason for supposing that the angel visibly appeared in doing this. It is enough to suppose that at a certain hour there was a sudden stir and agitation of the waters, immediately after which they possessed the miraculous virtue of healing,— just as the waters at Marah became sweet immediately after Moses cast the tree into them. (Exodus 15:25.) [Whosoever then first.] This shows that the whole affair was miraculous. On no other supposition can we account for only one person being healed after the troubling of the water. That only "one" was healed, is plain, I think, from the wording of the passage. [Of whatsoever disease he had.] These words would be more literally translated, "with whatsoever disease he was held." Bengel thinks that the use of the past tense throughout this verse shows that the miracle had ceased when John wrote. He "used to go down,"— "used to trouble the waters," &c. Tertullian declares expressly that the miracle ceased from the time that the Jews rejected Christ. v5.—[Infirmity thirty and eight years.] This means the length of time during which the sick man had been ill. How old he was we do not know. Baxter remarks, "How great a mercy is it to live eight and thirty years under God's wholesome discipline! O my God, I thank Thee for the like discipline of eight and fifty years. How safe a life is this compared to one spent in full prosperity and pleasure!" Those who see typical and abstruse meanings in all the least details of the narratives of Scriptures, observe that thirty-eight years was the exact time of Israel's wanderings in the wilderness. They see in the sick man,— helpless and hopeless till Christ came,— a type of the Jewish Church. The pool of Bethesda is Old Testament religion. The small benefit it conferred,— viz.: only healing one at a time, represents the narrow and limited benefit which Judaism conferred on mankind. The merciful interference of Christ on the sick man's behalf, represents the bringing in of the Gospel for all the world. These are pious thoughts, but it may well be doubted whether there is any warrant for them. The notions that the pool of Bethesda was a type of baptism, and the five porches typical of the five books of the law, or the five wounds of Christ, appear to me mere ingenious inventions of man, without any solid foundation. Yet Chrysostom, Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius, Burgon, Wordsworth, and many others, maintain them. Those who wish to see a full reply to the theory, that the miracle at the pool of Bethesda is a typical proof of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, will find it in Gomarus, the Dutch divine. He takes up Bellarmine's argument on the subject, and answers him completely. v6.—[When Jesus saw....knew....long time.] We need not doubt that our Lord knew this man's history by that divine knowledge which, as God, He possesses of all things in heaven and earth. To suppose that He ascertained by inquiry the state of his case before speaking to him, is a weak, meager, and frigid interpretation. As a practical truth, it is a most comfortable doctrine that Jesus knows every sickness and disease, and all its weary history. Nothing is hid from Him. [He said unto him.] This is an example of our Lord being the first to speak and begin conversation, as He did with the woman of Samaria. (John 4:7.) Unasked, unsolicited, unexpectedly, He mercifully addressed the sick man. No doubt He always begins in man's heart before man begins with Him. But He does all things, as a Sovereign, according to His own will; and it is not always that we see Him taking the first step so entirely of Himself, as we do here. [Wilt thou be made whole?] The English language here fails to give the full force of the Greek. It means, "Hast thou a will? Dost thou wish? Dost thou desire to be made whole?" The question was perhaps meant to awaken desire and expectation in the man, and to prepare him in some sense for the blessing about to be bestowed on him. Is not this, to take a spiritual view, the very language that Christ is continually addressing to every man and woman who hears His Gospel? He sees us in a wretched, miserable, sin-sick condition. The one thing He asks us is, "Hast thou any wish to be saved?" v7.—[The impotent man answered him, Sir.] The word rendered "Sir" is the same that is more commonly rendered "Lord." It is the same that is rendered "Sir" all through the fourth chapter, in the history of the Samaritan woman. [I have no man....put me into the pool.] This is no doubt mentioned as an intentional proof of the heartlessness and unkindness of human nature. Think of a poor invalid waiting for years by the water, and having not a single friend to help him! The longer we live on earth the more we shall find that it is a selfish world, and that the sick and afflicted have few real friends in time of need. "The poor is hated even of his neighbour." (Proverbs 14:20.) Christ is the only unfailing friend of the friendless and helper of the helpless. v8.—[Rise, take up thy bed and walk.] Here, as in other similar cases, it is evident that miraculous healing power went forth with the words of our Lord. Thus, "Stretch forth thy hand" (Mark 3:5); "Go show yourselves to the priests" (Luke 17:14). Commands like these tested the faith and obedience of those to whom they were given. How could they possibly do the things commanded, if impotent, like the man before us? Where the use of doing them, if still covered with leprosy, like the ten lepers? But it was precisely in the act of obedience that the blessing came. The whole power is Christ's. But He loves to make us exert ourselves, and show our obedience and faith. Augustine finds in the command, "Take up thy bed," an exhortation to the love of our neighbours, because we are to bear one another's burdens; and in the command, "walk," an exhortation to love God! Such allegorizing appears to me very unwarrantable, and calculated to bring the Bible into contempt, as a book that can be made to mean anything. v9.—[Immediately....made whole....walked.] Here we see the reality of the miracle wrought. Nothing but Divine power could enable one who had been a cripple for so many years to move his limbs and carry a burden all at once. But it was as easy to our Lord to give immediate strength as it was to create muscles, nerves, and sinews in the day that Adam was made. When we are told that the man "took up his bed," we must remember that this probably was nothing more than a light mattress, carpet, or thick cloth, such as is commonly used in hot countries for sleeping on. v10.—[The Jews.] Here, as in many places in John's Gospel, the expression, "the Jews," when used of the Jews at Jerusalem, means the leaders of the people,— elders, rulers, and scribes. It does not mean vaguely the "Jewish crowd" around our Lord, but the representatives of the whole nation,— the heads of Israel at the time. [It is not lawful....carry....bed.] In support of this charge of unlawfulness, the Jews would allege not merely the general law of the fourth commandment, but the special passages in Nehemiah and Jeremiah, about "bearing no burden" on the Sabbath day. (Nehemiah 13:19; Jeremiah 17:21.) But they could not have proved that these passages applied to the case of the man before them.— For a man to carry merchandise and wares on the Sabbath was one thing. For a sick man, suddenly and miraculously healed, to walk away to his home, carrying his mattress, was quite another.— To forbid the one man to carry his burden was Scriptural and lawful. To forbid the other was cruel, and contrary to the spirit of the law of Moses.— The act of the one man was unnecessary. The act of the other was an act of necessity and mercy.— It might perhaps be urged in defense of the Jews, that they only saw a man carrying off a burden, and knew nothing of his previous illness or his cure. But when we remember the many instances recorded in the Gospels of their extreme and harsh interpretation of the fourth commandment, it is doubtful whether this plea will stand. v11.—[He that made me whole the same said, etc.] The answer of the man seems simple. But it contains a deep principle. "He that has done so great a thing to me was surely to be obeyed, when He told me to take up my bed. If He had authority and power to heal, He was not likely to lay upon me an unlawful command. I only obeyed him who cured me." If Christ has really healed our souls, should not this be our feeling toward Him?— "Thou hast healed me. What thou commandest I will do." v12.—[What man is he which said....Take up thy bed, etc.] Ecolampadius, Grotius, and many others, remark what an example this question is of the malevolent and malicious spirit of the Jews. Instead of asking, "who healed thee?" they asked "who told thee to carry thy bed?" They cared not for knowing what they might admire as a work of mercy, but what they might make the ground of an accusation. How many are like them! They are always looking out for something to find fault with. v13.—[Wist not who it was.] It is most probable that the cripple really knew not who it was that had healed him, and had only seen our Lord that day for the first time. He was ignorant of His name, and only knew Him as a kind person, who came up and said suddenly, "Wilt thou be made whole?" and, after curing him miraculously, suddenly disappeared in the crowd. [Conveyed himself away.] The Greek word so rendered is peculiar, and only found in this place. Parkhurst thinks that it simply means "departed, or went away." Schleusner says that the root of the idea is, "swimming out, or escaping by swimming," and that the meaning here is, "withdrew himself secretly from the crowd that was in the place." If so, it is not improbable that, as in Luke 4:30, at Nazareth, and John 10:39, in the Temple, our Lord put forth a miraculous power in passing or gliding through the crowd without being observed or stopped. v14.—[Afterward....temple.] It is not clear how long a time elapsed before our Lord found the man whom He had healed in the Temple. If the theory be correct to which I adverted in the note on the first verse, there must have been an interval. The word "afterwards" is literally "after these things." Chrysostom thinks that the circumstance of the man being found "in the temple" is an indication of his piety. [Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, etc.] These words appear to point at something more than meets the eye. They are a solemn caution. One might fancy that our Lord knew that some sin had been the beginning of the man's illness, and that he meant to remind him of it. It certainly seems very unlikely that our Lord would say broadly and vaguely, "sin no more," unless he spoke with a significant reference to some sin which, had been the primary cause of this man's long illness. (See 1 Corinthians 11:30.) There are sins which bring their own punishments on men's bodies; and I am strongly disposed to think that it may have been the case with this man. The expression, "a worse thing," would then come out with more force. It would be "a heavier visitation,"— a worse judgment,— even than this thirty-eight years' illness. A sick bed is a sorrowful place, but hell is much worse. Besser remarks,— "It is a dreadful thing, when the correction and mercy of Divine love wearies itself with a man in vain. You that are sick, write over your beds, when you rise up from them in renewed health,— 'Behold thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.' " Brentius says much the same. If sin was the cause of this man's disease, and he had been ill from the effects of it thirty and eight years, it is plain that it must have been committed before our Lord was born! It is an instance, in that case, of our Lord's perfect and Divine knowledge of all things, past as well as future. v15.—[Departed and told the Jews.] There is no proof that the man did this with any evil design. Born a Jew, and taught to reverence his rulers and elders, he naturally wished to give them the information they desired, and had no reason to suppose, for anything we can see, that it would injure his Benefactor. THESE verses begin one of the most deep and solemn passages in the four Gospels. They show us the Lord Jesus asserting His own Divine nature, His unity with God the Father, and the high dignity of His office. Nowhere does our Lord dwell so fully on these subjects as in the chapter before us. And nowhere, we must confess, do we find out so thoroughly the weakness of man's understanding! There is much, we must all feel, that is far beyond our comprehension in our Lord's account of Himself. Such knowledge, in short, is too wonderful for us. "It is high: we cannot attain unto it." (Psalms 139:6.) How often men say that they want clear explanations of such doctrines as the Trinity. Yet here we have our Lord handling the subject of His own Person, and, behold! we cannot follow Him. We seem only to touch His meaning with the tip of our fingers. We learn, for one thing, from the verses before us, that there are some works which it is lawful to do on the Sabbath day. The Jews, as on many other occasions, found fault because Jesus healed a man who had been ill for thirty-eight years, on the Sabbath. They charged our Lord with a breach of the fourth commandment. Our Lord's reply to the Jews is very remarkable. "My Father," he says, "worketh hitherto, and I also work." It is as though He said:— "Though my Father rested on the seventh day from His work of creation, He has never rested for a moment from His providential government of the world, and from His merciful work of supplying the daily wants of all His creatures. Were He to rest from such work, the whole frame of nature would stand still. And I also work works of mercy on the Sabbath day. I do not break the fourth commandment when I heal the sick, any more than my Father breaks it when He causes the sun to rise and the grass to grow on the Sabbath." We must distinctly understand, that neither here nor elsewhere does the Lord Jesus overthrow the obligation of the fourth commandment. Neither here nor elsewhere is there a word to justify the vague assertions of some modern teachers, that "Christians ought not to keep a Sabbath," and that it is "a Jewish institution which has passed away." The utmost that our Lord does, is to place the claims of the Sabbath on the right foundation. He clears the day of rest from the false and superstitious teaching of the Jews, about the right way of observing it. He shows us clearly that works of necessity and works of mercy are no breach of the fourth commandment. After all, the errors of Christians on this subject, in these latter days, are of a very different kind from those of the Jews. There is little danger of men keeping the Sabbath too strictly. The thing to be feared is the disposition to keep it loosely and partially, or not to keep it at all. The tendency of the age is not to exaggerate the fourth commandment, but to cut it out of the Decalogue, and throw it aside altogether. Against this tendency it becomes us all to be on our guard. The experience of eighteen centuries supplies abundant proofs that vital religion never flourishes when the Sabbath is not well kept. We learn, for another thing, from these verses, the dignity and greatness of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Jews, we are told, sought to kill Jesus because He said "that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." Our Lord, in reply, on this special occasion, enters very fully into the question of His own Divine nature. In reading His words, we must all feel that we are reading mysterious things, and treading on very holy ground. But we must feel a deep conviction, however little we may understand, that the things He says could never have been said by one who was only man. The Speaker is nothing less than "God manifest in the flesh." (1 Timothy 3:16.) He asserts His own unity with God the Father. No other reasonable meaning can be put on the expressions,— "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.— The Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth." Such language, however deep and high, appears to mean that in operation, and knowledge, and heart, and will, the Father and the Son are One,— two Persons, but one God. Truths such as these are of course beyond man's power to explain particularly. Enough for us to believe and rest upon them. He asserts, in the next place, His own Divine power to give life. He tells us, "The Son quickeneth whom he will." Life is the highest and greatest gift that can be bestowed. It is precisely that thing that man, with all his cleverness, can neither give to the work of his hands, nor restore when taken away. But life, we are told, is in the hands of the Lord Jesus, to bestow and give at His discretion. Dead bodies and dead souls are both alike under His dominion. He has the keys of death and hell. In Him is life. He is the life. (John 1:4. Revelation 1:18.) He asserts, in the last place, His own authority to judge the world. "The Father," we are told, "has committed all judgment unto the Son." All power and authority over the world is committed to Christ's hands. He is the King and the Judge of mankind. Before Him every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that he is Lord. He that was once despised and rejected of man, condemned and crucified as a malefactor, shall one day hold a great assize, and judge all the world. "God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." (Romans 2:16.) And now let us think whether it is possible to make too much of Christ in our religion. If we have ever thought so, let us cast aside the thought for ever. Both in His Own nature as God, and in His office as commissioned Mediator, He is worthy of all honor. He that is one with the Father,— the Giver of life,— the King of kings,— the coming Judge, can never be too much exalted. "He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent him." If we desire salvation, let us lean our whole weight on this mighty Savior. So leaning, we never need be afraid. Christ is the rock of ages, and he that builds on Him shall never be confounded,— neither in sickness, nor in death, nor in the judgment-day. The hand that was nailed to the cross is almighty! The Savior of sinners is "mighty to save." (Isaiah 63:1.) ================== Notes— v16.—[Therefore....Jews persecute, etc.] The verbs in this verse are all in the imperfect tense. It may be doubted whether the meaning is not, strictly speaking, something of this kind:— "The Jews from this time began to persecute Jesus, and were always seeking to slay Him, because He made a habit of doing these things on the Sabbath day." It is some confirmation of this view that our Lord at a much later period refers to this very miracle at Bethesda, as a thing which had specially angered the Jews of Jerusalem, and for which they hated Him and sought still to kill Him. It was long after the time of this miracle when He said,— "Are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?" (John 7:23.) v17.—[But Jesus answered.] This seems to have been the first reply which our Lord made when charged with breaking the fourth commandment. It was a short, simple justification of the lawfulness of doing works of mercy on the Sabbath. There seems to have been an interval between this reply and the long argumentative defense which begins in the 19th verse. [My Father worketh hitherto, and I also work.] The words rendered "hitherto," are, literally, "until now,"— that is, from the beginning of creation up to the present time. I can only see one meaning in this pithy sentence:— "My Father in heaven is continually working works of mercy and kindness in His providential government of the world, in supplying the wants of all His creatures, in maintaining the whole fabric of the earth in perfection, in giving rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, in preserving and sustaining life. All this He does on Sabbaths, as well as week days. Were He to cease from such works, the whole world would be full of confusion. When He rested from His works of creation He did not rest from His works of providence. I also, who am His beloved Son, claim the right to work works of mercy on the Sabbath. In working such works I do not break the Sabbath any more than My Father does. My Father appointed the fourth commandment to be honoured, and yet never ceased to cause the sun to rise and the grass to grow on the Sabbath. I also, who claim to be One with the Father, honour the Sabbath, but I do not abstain from works of mercy upon it." Two things should be observed in this sentence. One is the plain practical lesson that the Sabbath was not meant to be a day of total idleness, and of entire cessation from all kinds and sorts of work. "The Sabbath was made for man,"— for his benefit, comfort, and advantage. Works of mercy and of real necessity to man's life and animal existence on the Sabbath day, were never intended to be forbidden.— The other thing to be observed is our Lord's assertion of His own Divinity and equality with God the Father. When He said, "My Father worketh, and I also work," He evidently meant much more than bringing forward His Father's example, though that of course is contained in His argument, and justifies all Christians in doing works of mercy on Sundays. What He meant was, "I am the beloved Son of God: I and My Father are one in essence, dignity, honour, and authority; whatever He does I also do, and have right to do. He works and I also work. He gave you the Sabbath, and it is His day. I too, as one with Him, am Lord of the Sabbath." That the Jews saw this to be the meaning of His words seems clear from the next verse. Chrysostom remarks on this verse:— "If any one say, 'How doth the Father work, who ceased on the seventh day from all His works?' let him learn the manner in which He worketh. What is it? He careth for, He holdeth together all that hath been made. When thou beholdest the sun rising, and the moon running in her path, the lakes, the fountains, the rivers, the rains, the course of nature in seeds, and in our own bodies and those of irrational beings, and all the rest, by means of which this universe is made up, then learn the ceaseless working of the Father." (Matthew 5:45; Matthew 6:30.) Schottgen quotes a remarkable saying of Philo Judæus,— "God never ceases to work. Just as it is the property of fire to burn and of snow to be cold, so is it the property of God to work." Ferus remarks on the great variety of arguments used by our Lord on various occasions, in reply to the superstitious views of the Jews about the Sabbath. One time He adduces the example of David eating the shew-bread, another time the example of the priests working in the Temple on the Sabbath, another time the readiness of the Jews to help an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath. All these arguments were used in defense of works of necessity and mercy. Here He takes higher ground still,— the example of His Father. v18.—[Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him.] This short defense which our Lord made seems to have rankled in the minds of the Jews, and to have made them even more bitter against Him. What length of time is covered by this verse is not very plain. I am inclined to think that it implies some little pause between the 17th and 19th verses. Here again, as in the 16th verse, we have the imperfect tense all the way through. It must surely point at something of habit, both in the designs of the Jews against our Lord, and in our Lord's conduct, and in His language about His Father. [Said God...his Father...equal with God.] It is clear that our Lord's words about His Sonship struck the Jews in a far more forcible way than they seem to strike us. In a certain sense all believers are "sons of God." (Romans 8:14.) But it is evident that they are not so in the sense that our Lord meant when He talked of God as His Father, and Himself as God's Son. The Greek undoubtedly might be translated more clearly, "said that God was His own particular Father." (Compare Romans 8:32.) The Jews at any rate accepted the words as meaning our Lord to assert His own peculiar Sonship, and His consequent entire equality with God the Father. Their charge and ground of anger against Him amounted to this:— "Thou callest God Thine own particular Father, and claimest authority to do whatsoever He does. By so doing Thou makest Thyself equal with God." And our Lord seems to have accepted this charge as a correct statement of the case, and to have proceeded to argue that He had a right to say what He had said, and that He really was equal with God. As Paul says,— "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (Philippians 2:6.) Augustine remarks,— "Behold the Jews understood what the Arians would not understand." Whitby remarks that the Jews never accused our Lord of blasphemy for saying that he was the Messiah, But for saying that He was the Son of God, because they did not believe that Messiah when He appeared was to be a Divine Person. Ferus remarks that the Jews probably took notice of our Lord calling God "My Father," and not "our Father."— Cartwright also thinks that there is much weight in the expression "my," and that the Jews gathered from it that Christ claimed to be the only-begotten Son of God, and not merely a Son by adoption and grace. v19.—[Then answered Jesus and said unto them.] This verse begins a long discourse, in which our Lord formally defends himself from the charge of the Jews of laying claim to what He had no right to claim. (1.) He asserts His own Divine authority, commission, dignity, and equality with God His Father. (2.) He brings forward the evidence of His Divine commission, which the Jews ought to consider and receive. (3.) Finally, He tells the Jews plainly the reason of their unbelief, and charges home on their consciences their love of man's praise more than God's, and their inconsistency in pretending to honour Moses while they did not honour Christ. It is a discourse almost unrivalled in depth and majesty. There are few chapters in the Bible, perhaps, where we feel our own shallowness of understanding so thoroughly, and discover so completely the insufficiency of all human language to express "the deep things of God." Men are often saying they want explanations of the mysteries of the Christian faith, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the person of Christ, and the like. Let them just observe, when we do find a passage full of explanatory statements on a deep subject, how much there is that we have no line to fathom and no mind to take in. "I want more light," says proud man. God gives him his desire in this chapter, and lifts up the veil a little. But behold! we are dazzled by the very light we wanted, and find we have not eyes to take it in. It has always been thought by many commentators that this solemn discourse of our Lord's was delivered before the Sanhedrim, or general Ecclesiastical Assembly of the Jews. They regard it as a formal defense of His Divinity and Messiahship, and a statement of evidence why He should be received, before a regularly constituted ecclesiastical court.— It may be so. Probabilities seem in favour of the idea. But it must be remembered that we have nothing but internal evidence in favour of the theory. There is not a word said to show that our Lord was formally brought before the Sanhedrim, and made a formal defense.— Some writers lay much stress upon the opening words of the 19th verse,— "Then answered Jesus and said,"— and consider that these words imply a formal charge in court, and a formal reply from our Lord. It may be true. But we must remember that it is only a conjecture. One thing only is certain. Nowhere else in the Gospels do we find our Lord making such a formal, systematic, orderly, regular statement of His own unity with the Father, His Divine commission and authority, and the proofs of His Messiahship, as we find in this discourse. To me it seems one of the deepest things in the Bible. [Verily, verily, I say unto you.] Here, as elsewhere, the remark applies, that this form of expression always precedes some statement of more than ordinary depth and importance. [The Son can do nothing of himself, &c.] This opening verse declares the complete unity there is between God the Father and God the Son. The Son, from His very nature and relation to the Father, "can do nothing" independently or separately from the Father. It is not that He lacks or wants the power to do, but that He will not do. (Compare Genesis 19:22.) When the angel said, "I cannot do anything till thou be come thither;" it means of course "I will not do."— "Of himself" does not mean without help, or unassisted, but "from himself," from His own independent will. He can only do such things as, from His unity with the Father, and consequent ineffable knowledge, He "seeth the Father doing. For the Father and the Son are so united,— one God though two Persons,— that whatsoever the Father does the Son does also. The acts of the Son therefore are not His own independent acts, but the acts of His Father also. The Greek word which we render "likewise" must not be supposed to mean nothing more than "also, as well." It is literally "in like manner." Bishop Hall paraphrases this saying of our Lord thus:— "I and the Father are one indivisible essence, and our acts are no less inseparable. The Son can do nothing without the will and act of the Father; and, even as He is man, can do nothing but what He seeth agreeable to the will and purpose of His heavenly Father." Barnes remarks,— "The words 'what things soever' are without limit; all that the Father does, the Son likewise does. This is as high an assertion as possible of His being equal with God. If one does all that another does, or can do, then there is proof of equality. If the Son does all that the Father does, then, like Him, He must be almighty, omniscient, all-present, and infinite in every perfection; or, in other words, He must be God." Augustine remarks,— "Our Lord does not say, whatsoever the Father doeth the Son does other things like them, but the very same things....If the Son doeth the same things, and in like manner, then let the Jew be silenced, the Christian believe, the heretic be convinced; the Son is equal with the Father." Hilary, quoted in the "Catena Aurea" remarks,— "Christ is the Son because He does nothing of Himself. He is God because whatsoever things the Father doeth, He doeth the same. They are One because They are equal in honour. He is not the Father because He is sent." Diodati remarks,— "The phrase, 'what He seeth the Father do,' is a figurative term, showing the inseparable communion of will, wisdom, and power, between the Son and the Father in the internal order of the most holy Trinity." Toletus remarks,— "When it is said 'the Son can do nothing of Himself', this does not mean want of power, but the highest power. Just as it is a mark of omnipotence not to be able to die, or to be worn out, or to be annihilated, because there is nothing that can injure omnipotence, so, likewise, 'to be unable to do anything of Himself' is no mark of impotence, but of the highest power. It means nothing less than having one and the same power with the Father, so that nothing can be done by the One which is not equally done by the Other." v20.—[The Father loveth the Son, &c.] This verse carries on the thought begun in the preceding verse,— the unity of the Father and the Son. When we read the words, "The father loveth," and the "Father showeth," we must not for a moment suppose them to imply any superiority in the Father, or any inferiority in the Son, as to their Divine nature and essence.— The "love" is not the love of an earthly parent to a beloved child. The "showing" is not the showing of a teacher to an ignorant scholar. The "love" is meant to show us that unspeakable unity of heart and affection (if such words may be reverently used) which eternally existed and exists between the Father and the Son. The "showing" means that entire confidence and cooperation which there was between the Father and the Son as to all the works which the Son should do when He came into the world, to fill the office of Mediator, and to save sinners.— The "greater works," which remained to be shown, were evidently the works specified in the two following verses,— the works of quickening and of judging. That the Jews did "marvel" and were confounded at the works of "quickening," we know from the Acts of the Apostles. That they will "marvel," even more at our Lord's work of judgment we shall see when Christ comes again to judge the heathen, to restore Jerusalem, to gather Israel, to convince the Jews of their unbelief, and to renew the face of the earth. Both in this, and the preceding verse, we must carefully remember the utter inability of any human language, or human ideas, to express perfectly such matters as our Lord is speaking of. Language is intended specially to express the things of man. It fails greatly when used to express things about God. In the expressions "seeth the Father do,"— "loveth the Son,"— "showeth him all things,"— "will show him greater works,"— we must carefully bear this in mind. We must remember that they are expressions accommodated to our weaker capacities. They are intended to explain the relation between two divine Beings, who are one in essence, though two Persons,— one in mind and will, though two in manifestation,— equal in all things as touching the Godhead, though the Son is inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. There must needs be immense difficulty in finding words to convey any idea of the relation between these two Persons. Hence the language used by our Lord must be cautiously handled, with a constant recollection that we are not reading of an earthly father and son, but of God the Father and God the Son, who though one in essence as God, are at the same time two distinct Persons. Augustine wisely remarks, "There are times when speech is deficient, even when the understanding is proficient. How much more doth speech suffer defect, when the understanding hath nothing perfect!" Augustine and Bernard both remark, that it is far "greater work" to repair ruined human nature, than to make it at first, and to re-create it, than to create it. v21, v22.—[As the Father raiseth up the dead, &c.] Our Lord here proceeds to tell the Jews one of His mighty works which He had come to do, in proof of His divine nature, authority, and commission. Did they find fault with Him for making Himself equal with God? Let them know that He had the same power as God the Father to give "life" and quicken the dead. Let them know furthermore, that all "judgment" was committed to Him. Surely He who had in His hand the mighty prerogatives of giving life and judging the world, had a right to speak of himself as equal with God! When we read "the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them," we must either understand the words to refer generally to God's power to raise the dead at the last day,— which the Jew would allow as an article of faith, and a special attribute of divinity,— or else we must understand it to apply to the power of spiritually quickening men's souls, which God had from the beginning exercised in calling men from death to life,— or else we must simply take it to mean that to give life, whether bodily or spiritual, is notoriously the peculiar attribute of God. The last view appears to me the most probable one, and most in harmony with what follows in after verses. When we read "the Son quickeneth whom he wills," we have a distinct assertion of the Son's Authority to give life at His will, either bodily or spiritual, with the same irresistible power as the Father. The highest of all gifts He has but to "will" and to bestow. The Greek word translated "quickeneth," is very strong. It is, literally, "makes alive," and seems to imply the power of making life of all kind, both bodily and spiritual. Burkitt remarks, that it is never said of any prophet or apostle, that he did mighty works "at his will." When we read "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son," we must understand that in the economy of redemption, the Father has honoured the Son by devolving on Him the whole office of judging the world. It cannot of course mean that judgment is work with which the Father from His nature hath nothing to do, but that it is work which He has completely and entirely committed to the Son's hands. He that died for sinners, is He that will judge them. Thus it is written,— "He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained." (Acts 17:31.) Burgon remarks, "There is an original, supreme, judicial power; and there is also a judicial power derived, given by commission. Christ, as God, hath the first together with the Father: Christ, as man, hath the second from the Father." I think it highly probable that the "all judgment committed to the Son," includes not merely the final judgment of the last day, but the whole work of ordering, governing, and deciding the affairs of Gods kingdom. "To judge" is an expression constantly used in the Old Testament in the sense of "to rule." The meaning then would be, that the Father has given to the Son the office of King and Judge. The whole administration of the Divine government of the world is put into the hands of the Son, Christ Jesus. Everything connected with the rule of the church and world, as well as the last judgment, is placed in the Son's hands. We should carefully mark the distinction between "quickening" and "judging" in the language of these two verses. (a.) It is not said that "the Father quickeneth no man," but hath committed the power of giving life to the Son. Had this been said, it would have contradicted the texts "no man can come unto Me except the Father draw him," and "the Spirit giveth life." (John 6:44; 2 Corinthians 3:6.) Quickening is the work of all three Persons in the Trinity, of one as much as another. (b.) It is said that judgment is the special work of the second Person of the Trinity. It is not the peculiar office either of the Father, or the Spirit, but of the Son. There seems a fitness in this. He who was condemned by an unjust judgment, and died for sinners, is He whose office it will be to judge the world. (c.) It is said that "the Son quickeneth whom he will." The power of giving life is as much the prerogative of the Son as of the Father, or of the Spirit. Surely this teaches us that to place the election of God the Father, or the work of the Spirit, before men, as the first and principal thing they should look at, is not good theology. Christ, after all, is the meeting-point between the Trinity and the world. It is His office to quicken as well as pardon. No doubt He quickeneth by the Spirit whom He sends into man's heart. But it is His prerogative to give life as well as peace. This ought to be remembered. There are some in this day who in a mistaken zeal put the work of the Father and the Spirit before the work of Christ. v23.—[That all men should honour the Son, &c.] By these words our Lord teaches us that the Father would have the Son to receive equal honour with Himself. We are to understand distinctly that there is no inferiority in the Son to the Father. He is equal to Him in dignity and authority. He is to be worshipped with equal worship. If any man fancies that to honour the Son equally with the Father, detracts from the Father's honour, our Lord declares that such a man is entirely mistaken. On the contrary, "He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent him." It was the mind and intention of the Father that the Son, as the Mediator between God and man, should receive honour from all men. The glory of His beloved Son is part of the Father's eternal counsels. Whenever therefore any one through ignorance or pride, or unbelief, neglects Christ, but professes at the same time to honour God, he is committing a mighty error, and so far from pleasing God, is greatly displeasing Him. The more a man honours Christ, and makes much of Him, the more the Father is pleased. Evangelical Christians should mark the doctrine of this verse, and remember it. They are sometimes taunted with holding new views in religion, because they bring forward Christ so much more prominently than their fathers or grandfathers did. Let them see here that the more they exalt the Son of God and His office, the more honour they are doing to the Father who sent Him. To the Deist and Socinian, the words of this verse are a strong condemnation. Not honouring Christ, they are angering God the Father. The Fatherhood of God, out of Christ, is a mere idol of man's invention, and incapable of comforting or saving. Alford remarks, "Whosoever does not honour the Son with equal honour to that which he pays to the Father, however he may imagine that he honours or approaches God, does not honour Him at all; because he can only be known by us as 'the Father who sent his Son.' "— Barnes remarks, "If our Saviour here did not intend to teach that He ought to be worshipped and esteemed equal with God, it would be difficult to teach it by any language." Rollock remarks, "The Jews and Turks in the present day profess to worship God earnestly, not only without the Son, but even with contempt of the Son Jesus Christ. But the whole of such worship is idolatrous, and that which they worship is an idol. There is no knowledge of the true God except in the face of the Son." Wordsworth remarks, "They who profess zeal for the one God do not honour Him aright, unless they honour the Son as they honour the Father. This is a warning to those who claim the title of Unitarians, and deny the divinity of Christ. No one can be said to believe in the Divine Unity who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity." The entire unity of the three Persons in the Trinity, is a subject that needs far more attention than many give to it. It may be feared that many well-meaning Christians are tritheists or worshippers of three distinct Gods, without knowing it. They talk as if God the Father's mind towards sinners was one thing, and God the Son's another,— as if the Father hated man, and the Son loved him and protected him. Such persons would do well to study this part of Scripture, and to mark the unity of the Father and the Son. After all, that deep truth, "the eternal generation" of God the Son, whatever proud man may say of it, is the foundation truth which we must never forget in trying to understand a passage like that before us. In the Trinity "none is afore or after other. The Father is eternal: the Son eternal: the Holy Ghost eternal. The Father is God: the Son is God: the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal: not three Gods, but one God."— As Burgon remarks, "There never was a time when any one of the three Persons was not;" and it might be added, there never was a time when the three Persons were not equal. And yet the Son was begotten of the Father from all eternity, and the Holy Ghost proceeded from all eternity from the Father and the Son. THE passage before us is singularly rich in weighty truths. To the minds of Jews, who were familiar with the writings of Moses and Daniel, it would come home with peculiar power. In the words of our Lord they would not fail to see fresh assertions of His claim to be received as the promised Messiah. We see in these verses that the salvation of our soul depends on hearing Christ. It is the man, we are told, who "hears Christ's word," and believes that God the Father sent Him to save sinners, who "has everlasting life." Such "hearing" of course is something more than mere listening. It is hearing as a humble scholar,— hearing as an obedient disciple,— hearing with faith and love,— hearing with a heart ready to do Christ's will,— this is the hearing that saves. It is the very hearing of which God spoke in the famous prediction of a "prophet like unto Moses:"— "Unto him shall ye hearken."— "Whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." (Deuteronomy 18:15-19.) To "hear" Christ in this way, we must never forget, is just as needful now as it was eighteen hundred years ago. It is not enough to hear sermons, and run after preachers, though some people seem to think this makes up the whole of religion. We must go much further than this: we must "hear Christ." To submit our hearts to Christ's teaching,— to sit humbly at His feet by faith, and learn of Him,— to enter His school as penitents, and become His believing scholars,— to hear His voice and follow Him,— this is the way to heaven. Till we know something experimentally of these things, there is no life in us. We see, secondly, in these verses, how rich and full are the privileges of the true hearer and believer. Such a man enjoys a present salvation. Even now, at this present time, he "hath everlasting life."— Such a man is completely justified and forgiven. There remains no more condemnation for him. His sins are put away. "He shall not come into condemnation."— Such a man is in an entirely new position before God. He is like one who has moved from one side of a gulf to another: "He is passed from death unto life." The privileges of a true Christian are greatly underrated by many. Chiefly from deplorable ignorance of Scripture, they have little idea of the spiritual treasures of every believer in Jesus. These treasures are brought together here in beautiful order, if we will only look at them. One of a true Christian's treasures is the "presentness" of his salvation. It is not a far distant thing which he is to have at last, if he does his duty and is good. It is his own in title the moment he believes. He is already pardoned, forgiven, and saved, though not in heaven.— Another of a true Christian's treasures is the "completeness" of his justification. His sins are entirely removed, taken away, and blotted out of God's book, by Christ's blood. He may look forward to judgment without fear, and say, "who is he that condemneth?" (Romans 8:34.) He shall stand without fault before the throne of God.— The last, but not the least, of a true Christian's treasures, is the entire change in his relation and position toward God. He is no longer as one dead before Him,— dead, legally, like a man sentenced to die, and dead in heart. He is "alive unto God." (Romans 6:11.) "He is a new creature. Old things are passed away, and all things are become new." (2 Corinthians 5:17.) Well would it be for Christians if these things were better known! It is want of knowledge, in many cases, that is the secret of want of peace. We see, thirdly, in these verses, a striking declaration of Christ's power to give life to dead souls. Our Lord tells us that "the hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live." It seems most unlikely that these words were meant to be confined to the rising of men's bodies, and were fulfilled by such miracles as that of raising Lazarus from the grave. It appears far more probable that what our Lord had in view was the quickening of souls,— the resurrection of conversion. (Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13.) The words were fulfilled in not a few cases, during our Lord's own ministry. They were fulfilled far more completely after the day of Pentecost, through the ministry of the Apostles. The myriads of converts at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at Ephesus, at Corinth, and elsewhere, were all examples of their fulfillment. In all these cases, "the voice of the Son of God" awakened dead hearts to spiritual life, and made them feel their need of salvation, repent, and believe.— They are fulfilled at this very day, in every instance of true conversion. Whenever any men or women among ourselves awaken to a sense of their soul's value, and become alive to God, the words are made good before our eyes. It is Christ who has spoken to their hearts by His Spirit. It is "the dead hearing Christ's voice, and living." We see, lastly, in these verses, a most solemn prophecy of the final resurrection of all the dead. Our Lord tells us that "the hour is coming when all that are in the grave shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation." The passage is one of those that ought to sink down very deeply into our hearts, and never be forgotten. All is not over when men die. Whether they like it or not, they will have to come forth from their graves at the last day, and to stand at Christ's bar. None can escape His summons. When His voice calls them before Him, all must obey.— When men rise again, they will not all rise in the same condition. There will be two classes— two parties— two bodies. Not all will go to heaven. Not all will be saved. Some will rise again to inherit eternal life, but some will rise again only to be condemned. These are terrible things! But the words of Christ are plain and unmistakable. Thus it is written, and thus it must be. Let us make sure that we hear Christ's quickening voice now, and are numbered among His true disciples. Let us know the privileges of true believers, while we have life and health. Then, when His voice shakes heaven and earth, and is calling the dead from their graves, we shall feel confidence, and not be "ashamed before Him at his coming." (1 John 2:28.) ================== Notes— v24.—[Verily, verily, I say.] Here, as in other places, these words are the preface to a saying of more than ordinary solemnity and importance. [He that heareth my word.] The "hearing" here is much more than mere listening, or hearing with the ears. It means hearing with the heart, hearing with faith, hearing accompanied by obedient discipleship. He that so hears the doctrine, teaching, or "word" of Christ, hath life. It is such hearing as that of the true sheep: "My sheep hear my voice," (John 10:27,) or as that spoken of by Paul: "Ye have not so learned Christ, if so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him." (Ephesians 4:20-21.) [Believeth on Him that sent Me.] This must not be supposed to mean that a vague faith in God, such as the Deist professes to have, is the way to everlasting life. The belief spoken of is a believing on God in Christ,— a believing on God as the God who sent Christ to save sinners,— a believing on God as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has planned and provided redemption by the blood of His Son. He who so believes on God the Father, is the same man that believes in God the Son. In this sense the Father is just as much the object of saving faith as the Son. Thus we read, "It shall be imputed if we believe on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." (Romans 4:24.) And again, "Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God." (1 Peter 1:21.) He that rightly believes on Christ as his Saviour, with the same faith believes in God as his reconciled Father. The Gospel that invites the sinner to believe in Jesus as his Redeemer and Advocate, invites him at the same time to believe in the Father, who is "well pleased" with all who trust in His Son. Henry remarks, "Christ's design is to bring us to God. (1 Peter 3:18.) As God is the first original of all grace, so is He the ultimate object of all faith. Christ is our way, and God is our rest. We must believe on God as having sent Jesus Christ, and recommended Himself to our faith and love, by manifesting His glory in the face of Jesus Christ." Lightfoot remarks, "He doth most properly center the ultimate fixing and resting of belief in God the Father. For as from Him, as from a fountain, do flow all those things that are the object of faith,— namely free grace; the gift of Christ, the way of redemption, the gracious promises,— so unto Him as to that fountain doth faith betake itself in its final resting and repose,— namely to God in Christ." Chemnitius remarks, that the expression "believe on Him who sent me," shows "that true faith embraces the word of the Gospel, not as something thought out by Christ alone, but as something decreed in the secret counsel of the whole Trinity." [Hath everlasting life.] This means that he possesses a complete title to an everlasting life of glory hereafter, and is reckoned pardoned, forgiven, justified, and an heir of heaven, even now upon earth. His soul is delivered from the second death.— The "presentness" of the expression should be carefully noticed. Everlasting life is the present possession of every true believer, from the moment he believes. It is not a thing he shall have at last. He has it at once, even in this world. "All that believe are justified."— "Being justified by faith we have peace with God." (Acts 13:39; Romans 5:1.) [Shall not come into condemnation.] The Greek word for "come" is in the present tense, and it would be more literally rendered "does not come." The meaning is, there is no condemnation for him. His guilt is removed even now. He has nothing to fear in looking forward to the judgment of the last day. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus."— "He that believeth on Him is not condemned." (Romans 8:1; John 3:18.) I cannot see in these words any warrant for the notion held by some, that the saints of God shall not be judged at the last day in any way at all. The notion itself is so utterly contradictory to some plain texts of Scripture (2 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 14:10; Matthew 25:31-40), that I cannot understand any one holding it. But even in the text before us, it seems to me a violent straining of the words to apply them to the judgment-day. The thing our Lord is speaking of is the present privilege of a believer. The tense He uses, as Chemnitius bids us specially observe, is the present and not the future. And even supposing that the words do apply to the judgment-day, the utmost that can be fairly made of them is, that a believer has no condemnation to fear at the last day. Judged according to his works he shall be. Condemned he may certainly feel assured he shall not be. From the day he believes, all his condemnation is taken away. Ecolampadius remarks how irreconcilable this verse is with the Romish doctrine of purgatory. [But is passed from death to life.] This means that a believer has passed from a state of spiritual death to a state of spiritual life. Before he believed, he was dead legally,— dead as a guilty criminal condemned to die. In the day that he believed he received a free and full pardon. His sentence was reversed and put away. Instead of being legally dead, he became legally alive.— But this is not all. His heart, which was dead in sins, is now renewed, and alive unto God. There is a change in his character as well as in his position toward God. Like the prodigal son, he "was dead and is alive." (Luke 15:24.) We should mark carefully the strong language of Scripture in describing the immense difference between the position of a man who believes, and the man who does not believe. It is nothing else than the difference between life and death,— between being dead and being alive. Whatever some may think fit to say about the privileges of baptism, we must never shrink from maintaining, that so long as men do not hear Christ's voice and believe,— so long they are dead, whether baptized or not, and have no life in them. Faith, not baptism, is the turning point. He that has not yet believed is dead, and must be born again. When he believes, and not till then, he will pass from death to life. Ferus remarks, "Although it seems very easy to believe, and many think they do believe when they have only heard the name of believing,— supposing that to believe is the same as to understand, to remember, to know, to think,— yet this believing is in truth a hard and difficult thing. It is easy to fast, to say prayers, to go on pilgrimage, to give alms and the like; but to believe is a thing impossible to our strength. Let superstitious people learn that God requires of us a far higher and more difficult kind of worship than they imagine. Let pious people learn to seek faith more than anything, saying,— Lord, increase our faith." v25.—[Verily, verily, I say unto you.] This emphatic preface here begins a prophecy of the wonderful things that should yet be done by the Son of God. Did the Jews of Jerusalem desire to know what proofs of Divine power and authority the Son of God would give? Let them hear what he would do. [The hour is coming and now is.] This meant that a time was coming, and in fact had already begun. [The dead shall hear His voice and live.] It is thought by some that these words apply to the literal raising again of dead persons, such as Lazarus at Bethany. I cannot think it. I believe that the "dead" here spoken of are the spiritually dead. I believe that the "hearing the voice of the Son of God," means the hearing of faith. I believe that the "living" spoken of means the rising out of the death of sin to spiritual newness of life. And I believe that the whole verse is a prediction of the many conversions of dead sinners that were to take place soon, and had begun in some measure to take place already. The prediction was fulfilled when dead souls were converted during our Lord's own ministry, and was much more fulfilled after the day of Pentecost, when He was preached by His apostles to the Gentiles, and "believed on in the world." (1 Timothy 3:16.) To confine the words to the few cases of miraculous raising of dead bodies which took place in the time of our Lord and His apostles, appears to supply a very inadequate interpretation, and to be rendered unnecessary by the succeeding verse. Let it be noted that it is only those who "hear," or "have heard" with faith the voice of Christ, that live. Spiritual life turns on believing. "Ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth." (Ephesians 1:13.) Ferus and Cocceius think that the calling and conversion of the Gentiles was the principal thought in our Lord's mind when He spoke these words. v26.—[For as the Father, etc.] The first part of this verse needs no explanation. It is an admitted principle that God is the Author and Source of all life. He "hath life in himself." When it says further that "he hath given to the Son to have life in himself," we must not suppose it means that He has bestowed it on His Son, in the same way that He gives gifts to mere men, such as prophets and apostles. It rather means that in His everlasting counsels concerning man's redemption, He has appointed that the Second Person of the Trinity,— His beloved Son,— should be the Dispenser and Giver of life to all mankind. "God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." (1 John 5:11.) Both here and in the following verse we must remember that "giving" does not imply any inferiority in the Son to the Father, so far as concerns His Divine essence. The things "given" to the Son were things solemnly appointed, deputed, and laid upon Him when He assumed the office of Mediator, in virtue of His office. Burgon remarks,— "Both the Father and the Son have the same life; both have it in themselves; both in the same degree; as the one so the other; but only with this difference,— the Father from all eternity giveth it, the Son from all eternity receiveth it." v27.—[And hath given him authority, etc.] This means that in virtue of His Mediatorial office the Second Person of the Trinity is specially appointed to be the Judge of all mankind. In the counsels of God concerning man, "judgment" is assigned to the Son, and not to the Father, or to the Holy Spirit. It is undoubtedly true that God is "the Judge of all." (Hebrews 12:23.) But it is also true that it is God the Son who will execute judgment, and sit on the throne at the last day. [Because he is the Son of man.] These words seem to imply that there is a connection between our Lord's incarnation and His filling the office of the Judge. It is because He humbled Himself to take our nature on Him, and be born of the virgin Mary, that he will at length be exalted to execute judgment at the last day. It appears to be the same thought that Paul expresses when he tells the Philippians that because of Christ's humiliation, "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name," etc. (Philippians 2:9.) Burgon remarks,— "Because of His alliance with man's nature, because of His sense of man's infirmities, because of all He did and suffered for man's sake as the Son of man, the Son is that Person of the Trinity who is most fit, as well as most worthy, to be man's judge." The expression, "The Son of man," would be rendered more literally, "a Son of man," or, "Son of man." Campbell remarks that the absence of the article "the" before the words "Son of man," occurs nowhere in the Gospels except in this passage. Both in this and the preceding verse we should observe an example of the great truth, that "order is heaven's first law." Even the Second Person in the Trinity, one with the Father, very and eternal God, does not take on Himself the office of giving life and executing judgment, but receives it through the solemn appointment of God the Father. Just as it is written,— "Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son" (Hebrews 5:5), so we find it written here, that in taking on Him the office of Mediator, it was "given" to Him to have life in Himself, and "authority given to him" to judge. Those who take on themselves offices without either divine or human commission are very unlike our Lord. Toletus quotes a remarkable passage from Athanasius, in which he points out that such expressions as, "given to the Son by the Father," "received by the Son from the Father," are purposely used in order to prevent the Sabellian heresy of supposing that the Father and the Son are one and the same Person.— Such expressions are an unanswerable proof that the Father and the Son are two distinct Persons, though one God. We must never forget the words of the Athanasian creed,— "Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance." v28, v29.—[Marvel not at this.] These words imply that the hearers of our Lord were astonished at the things He had spoken concerning His Divine commission to give life and to judge. He proceeds to tell them that they have not yet heard all. If they wondered at what they had already heard, what would they think when He told them one thing more? [The hour is coming.] This means the last day. To use the present tense of a time so distant as this is characteristic of one who is very God, to whom time past, time present, and time to come, are all alike, and a thousand years are as one day. [All that are in the graves shall hear his voice...come forth...damnation, etc.] These words are singularly like those in Daniel 12:2. They contain one of the most distinct statements in Scripture of that great truth,— the resurrection of the dead.— It shall be universal, and not confined to a few only. "All" in the graves shall come forth, whether old or young, rich or poor.— It shall take place at Christ's command and bidding. His "voice" shall be the call that shall summon the dead from their graves.— There shall be a distinction of those who rise again, into two classes. Some shall rise to glory and happiness,— to what is called a "resurrection of life." Some shall rise to be lost and ruined for ever,— to what is called a "resurrection of damnation."— The doings of men shall be the test by which their final state shall be decided. "Life" shall be the portion of those that have "done good," "damnation" of those that "have done evil," in the resurrection-day. (a.) This passage condemns those who fancy that this world is all, and that this life ends everything, and that the grave is the conclusion. They are awfully mistaken. There is a resurrection and a life to come. (b.) This passage condemns those who try to persuade us in the present day that there is no future punishment, no hell, no condemnation for the wicked in the world to come,— that the love of God is lower than hell,— that God is too merciful and compassionate to punish any one. There is a "resurrection," we are told, "of damnation." (c.) This passage condemns those who try to make out that resurrection is the peculiar privilege of believers and saints, and that the wicked will be punished by complete annihilation. Both here and in Acts 24:15 we are distinctly told that both bad and good shall rise again. In Paul's famous chapter about the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-58), the resurrection of believers only is treated of. (d.) This passage condemns those who try to make out that men's lives and conduct are of little importance so long as they profess to have faith and to believe in Christ. Christ himself tells us expressly that the "doings" of men, whether good or evil, will be the evidence that shall decide whether they rise again to glory or condemnation. Musculus remarks that the goodness which God requires of us is not such as only begins in the next world, after the resurrection. We must have it now, and it must precede the time of judgment. It is not said, "some shall rise again that they may be made good and partakers of life," but, "they that have done good shall come forth to a resurrection of life." We should take care to be such in this life as we desire to be found in the day of judgment.— He also remarks that our Lord does not say, "those who have known or talked what is good," but, "those who have actually done good" shall come forth to a resurrection of life. Those only will be found to have "done good" who are God's elect, born again, and true believers. Nothing but true faith will bear the fruit of good works. Calvin remarks that our Lord is not here speaking of the cause of salvation, but of the marks of the saved, and that one great mark which distinguishes the elect from the reprobate, is good doing. There are two different Greek words used to express the English words "they that have done," and it is difficult to say why. Precisely the same difference exists in John 3:20-21. The attempts made to explain the distinction between the two words do not appear to me very successful. For instance,— Wordsworth remarks: "Good made and done has permanence for ever. Evil is practiced, but produces no fruit for eternity." Yet I doubt whether this remark will apply to Romans 1:32, and Romans 2:3, where both the two Greek words for "doing" are used together, and applied to the same class of persons, viz., the wicked. It is thought by some that this passage supports the doctrine of the first resurrection as the peculiar privilege of the saints. (Revelation 20:5.) But it must in fairness be remembered that there is nothing said here about distinction of time in the resurrection, of the good and bad. As to the manner in which Christ's "voice" will be heard by the dead "in the graves" we are told nothing. It is remarkable that there are two other places beside this in which a "voice" or sound is mentioned as accompanying the resurrection. In Corinthians we read of the "last trumpet." (1 Corinthians 15:52.) In Thessalonians we are told of "a shout," of the "voice of the archangel," and the "trump of God." (1 Thessalonians 4:16.) Nothing, however, but conjecture can be brought forward about the subject. No doubt the latent thought is that the dead bodies of men are sleeping, and need to be awakened, as sleepers are roused by a voice. As to the nature of risen bodies we are told nothing. Enough for us to know that this passage clearly shows it will be a resurrection of "bodies" as well as souls. It is those who are "in the graves" that shall come forth. IN these verses we see the proof of our Lord Jesus Christ being the promised Messiah, set forth before the Jews in one view. Four different witnesses are brought forward. Four kinds of evidence are offered. His Father in heaven,—His forerunner, John the Baptist,—the miraculous works He had done,—the Scriptures, which the Jews professed to honor,—each and all are named by our Lord, as testifying that He was the Christ, the Son of God. Hard must those hearts have been which could hear such testimony; and yet remain unmoved! But it only proves the truth of the old saying,—that unbelief does not arise so much from want of evidence, as from want of will to believe. Let us observe for one thing in this passage, the honor Christ puts on His faithful servants. See how He speaks of John the Baptist.—"He bare witness of the truth;"—"He was a burning and a shining light."—John had probably passed away from his earthly labors when these words were spoken. He had been persecuted, imprisoned, and put to death by Herod,—none interfering, none trying to prevent his murder. But this murdered disciple was not forgotten by his Divine Master. If no one else remembered him, Jesus did. He had honored Christ, and Christ honored him. These things ought not to be overlooked. They are written to teach us that Christ cares for all His believing people, and never forgets them. Forgotten and despised by the world, perhaps, they are never forgotten by their Savior. He knows where they dwell, and what their trials are. A book of remembrance is written for them. "Their tears are all in His bottle." (Psalms 56:8.) Their names are graven on the palms of His hands. (Isaiah 49:16.) He notices all they do for Him in this evil world, though they think it not worth notice, and He will confess it one day publicly, before His Father and the holy angels. He that bore witness to John the Baptist never changes. Let believers remember this. In their worst estate they may boldly say with David,—"I am poor and needy; yet the LORD thinketh upon me." (Psalms 40:17.) Let us observe, for another thing, the honor Christ puts upon miracles, as an evidence of His being the Messiah. He says,—"The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me." The miracles of the Lord receive far less attention, in the present day, as proofs of His Divine mission, than they ought to do. Too many regard them with a silent incredulity, as things which, not having seen, they cannot be expected to care for. Not a few openly avow that they do not believe in the possibility of such things as miracles, and would fain strike them out of the Bible as weak stories, which, like burdensome lumber, should be cast overboard, to lighten the ship. But, after all, there is no getting over the fact, that in the days when our Lord was upon earth, His miracles produced an immense effect on the minds of men. They aroused attention to Him that worked them. They excited inquiry, if they did not convert. They were so many, so public, and so incapable of being explained away, that our Lord's enemies could only say that they were done by satanic agency. That they were done, they could not deny. "This man," they said, "doeth many miracles." (John 11:47.) The facts which wise men pretend to deny now, no one pretended to deny eighteen hundred years ago. Let the enemies of the Bible take our Lord's last and greatest miracle—His own resurrection from the dead—and disprove it if they can. When they have done that, it will be time to consider what they say about miracles in general. They have never answered the evidence of it yet, and they never will. Let the friends of the Bible not be moved by objections against miracles, until that one miracle has been fairly disposed of. If that is proved unassailable, they need not care much for quibbling arguments against other miracles. If Christ did really rise from the dead by His own power, there is none of His mighty works which man need hesitate to believe. Let us observe, lastly, in these verses, the honor that Christ puts upon the Scriptures. He refers to them in concluding His list of evidences, as the great witnesses to Him. "Search the Scriptures," He says: "they are they which testify of me." The "Scriptures" of which our Lord speaks are of course the Old Testament. And His words show the important truth which too many are apt to overlook,—that every part of our Bibles is meant to teach us about Christ. Christ is not merely in the Gospels and Epistles. Christ is to be found directly and indirectly in the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets. In the promises to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and David,—in the types and emblems of the ceremonial law,—in the predictions of Isaiah and the other prophets,—Jesus, the Messiah, is everywhere to be found in the Old Testament. How is it that men see these things so little? The answer is plain. They do not "search the Scriptures." They do not dig into that wondrous mine of wisdom and knowledge, and seek to become acquainted with its contents. Simple, regular reading of our Bibles is the grand secret of establishment in the faith. Ignorance of the Scriptures is the root of all error. And now what will men believe, if they do not believe the Divine mission of Christ? Great indeed is the obstinacy of infidelity. A cloud of witnesses testify that Jesus was the Son of God. To talk of wanting evidence is childish folly. The plain truth is, that the chief seat of unbelief is the heart. Many do not wish to believe, and therefore remain unbelievers. ================== Notes— v30.—[I can of mine own self, etc.] This verse is perhaps one of the most difficult in Scripture. It is so because the subject of it is that great mystery,— the unity of God the Father and God the Son. Man has no language to express adequately the idea that has to be conveyed. The general thought of the verse seems to be as follows:— "In consequence of the close relation between Me and the Father, I cannot do anything independently and separately from Him. 'I judge,' and decide, and speak on all points, in entire harmony with the Father, as though I heard Him continually at My side; and so judging and speaking My judgment on all points is always right. It is right now, and will be seen right at the great account of the last day. For in all that I do I seek not to do My Own will only, but the will of Him that sent Me, since there is an entire harmony between My will and His." Let it be carefully noted that at this part of His address our Lord ceases to speak in the third person of Himself as "the Son of man," and begins to use the first person,— "I can," "I hear," "I judge," etc. "Of mine own self" does not mean "unhelped and unassisted," but "from myself,"— from My own independent volition and action. Chrysostom remarks,— "Just as when we say, it is impossible for God to do wrong, we do not impute to Him any weakness, but confess in Him an unutterable power; so also when Christ saith, 'I can of my own self do nothing,' the meaning is that it is impossible,— my nature admits not,— that I should do anything contrary to the Father." "As I hear" is an expression adapted to man's comprehension, to convey the idea of the unity between the Father and the Son. It is like verse 19th, where it is said, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." It is also like the words used of the Holy Ghost,— "He shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak." (John 16:13.) Chrysostom remarks,— "Just as when Christ said, 'we speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen,' and John the Baptist said, 'that which he hath seen and heard he testifieth,' (John 3:11, John 3:32,) both expressions are used concerning exact knowledge, and not concerning mere 'seeing' and 'hearing;'— so in this place, when Christ speaks of 'hearing,' He declares nothing else than that it is impossible for Him to desire anything save what the Father desireth." "I judge" applies not only to all Christ's judgments and decisions as Mediator when He was upon earth, but to His final judgment at the last day. "My judgment is just" would probably remind the Jews of the prophecies about Messiah. (Isaiah 11:3 and Daniel 7:13.) "I seek not mine own will" must be interpreted with special reference to our Lord's Divine nature, as Son of God. Having as God, one will with the Father, it was not possible for Him to seek His own will independently of the Father. Hence the judgment was not His only, but His Father's also.— As Son of man He had a human will distinct from His Divine will, as when He said, "Let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39.) But the will here seems to be His Divine will. Chrysostom remarks,— "What Christ implieth is of this kind:— not that the will of the Father is one and His own another, but that as one will in one mind, so is Mine own will and My Father's." Once more we must remember the extreme difficulty of handling such a subject as the one before us. The distinction between the Persons in the Trinity, and the Unity of their essence at the same time, must always be a deep thing to man, hard to conceive, and harder still to speak or write about. v31.—[If I bear witness of myself, etc.] This verse must be interpreted with caution and reasonable qualification. It would be folly and blasphemy to say that our Lord's testimony about Himself must be false. What the verse does appear to mean is this:— "If I have no other testimony to bring forward in proof of My Messiahship but My own word, my testimony would be justly open to suspicion."— Our Lord knew that in any disputed question a man's assertions in his own favour are worth little or nothing. He tells the Jews that He did not want them to believe Him merely because He said He was the Son of God. He would show them that He had other witnesses, and these witnesses He next proceeds to bring forward. A comparison of this verse with John 8:14 shows at once that the meaning of the words, "My witness is not true," must be qualified and restrained, or else one place of Scripture would contradict the other. v32.—[There is another that beareth witness.] There are two distinct and different views of this expression. (a.) Some, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Lightfoot, Brentius, Grotius, Ferus, Barradius, Quesnel, Whitby, Doddridge, Gill, think that the "other witness" is John the Baptist. (b.) Some, as Cyril, Athanasius, Calvin, Beza, Gualter, Bucer, Ecolampadius, Zwingle, Rupertus, Flacius, Calovius, Cocceius, Piscator, Musculus, Aretius, Toletus, Nifanius, Rollock, Poole, Leigh, Diodati, Hammond, Trapp, Hutcheson, Henry, Burkitt, Baxter, Bloomfield, Lampe, Bengel, Pearce, A. Clarke, Scott, Barnes, Stier, Alford, Webster, think that "the other witness,'' is God the Father. I feel no doubt in my own mind that this last is the correct view. The use of the present tense,— "witnesseth,''— is a strong proof of it. John the Baptist's testimony was a thing past and gone.— Our Lord declares that His Father had borne distinct testimony to Him, and supplied abundant evidence, if they, the Jews, would only receive it. And He adds, "his testimony is true." He will never bear witness to a lie.— Then having laid down this general proposition, He goes on to show the threefold testimony which God had provided:— first, John the Baptist;— secondly, the miracles which the Father had commissioned Him to work;— and, thirdly, the Scriptures. The expression, "I know," probably implies the deep consciousness which our Lord had, even in His humiliation, of His Father's perfect righteousness and truthfulness. It means much more than a mere man's "I know." "I know and have known from all eternity that my Father's testimony is perfect truth." v33.—[Ye sent unto John, etc.] In this sentence the word "ye" must be taken emphatically. It is "ye yourselves." The meaning of the verse seems to be,— "My first witness is John the Baptist. Now ye yourselves sent unto him at an early period of his ministry, and ye know that he told you One greater than himself was coming, whose messenger he was, and that afterwards he said of Me, 'Behold the Lamb of God.' You cannot deny that he was a prophet indeed. Yet he bore faithful witness unto Me. He told you the truth." There can be no doubt that our Lord refers to the formal mission of "priests and Levites from Jerusalem" to John the Baptist described in John 1:19. v34.—[But I receive not testimony from man, etc.] This sentence seems meant to remind the Jews that they must not suppose our Lord depended either solely or chiefly on man's testimony. "Not that I would have you think I rest My claim to be received as the Messiah on the witness of John the Baptist, or of any other man. But I say these things about John and his witness to Me in order to remind you of what you heard him say, and that remembering his testimony to Me you may believe and be saved." Here, as elsewhere, we should note how our Lord presses home on the Jews the inconsistency of admitting John the Baptist to be a prophet sent from God, while they refused to believe Himself as the Messiah. If they believed John they ought in consistency to have believed Him. (See Matthew 21:23-27.) v35.—[He was a burning...light.] This is very high testimony to John. Doubtless he was not "the light," as Christ was. But still he was not an ordinary lamp lighted from above, as all true believers are. He was pre-eminently "the lamp," a lamp of peculiar power and brilliancy, a "burning" and a "shining" light like a flaming beacon or light-house seen from afar. I think the expression "he was" shows that at the time when our Lord spoke, John the Baptist was either in prison or dead. At any rate his public ministry was ended. "He used to be a light. He is burning and shining no longer." Chrysostom remarks,— "He called John a torch or lamp, signifying that he had not light of himself, but by the grace of the Spirit." [Ye were willing for a season to rejoice.] This refers to the extraordinary popularity and acceptance of John the Baptist when his ministry first began. "Then went out unto him Jerusalem and all Judæa, and all the country round about Jordan." (Matthew 3:5.) "Many of the Pharisees and Sadducees came to his baptism." (Matthew 3:7.) It was an ignorant excitement that brought many of John's hearers to him. They thought most probably, that the Messiah, of whom he spoke, and whose way he came to prepare, would be a temporal king and conqueror, and would give to Israel its old pre-eminence on earth. But be the motives what they might, the fact remains that John's ministry attracted immense attention, and awakened the curiosity of the whole Jewish nation. "They willingly rejoiced in the light which John lifted up." They seemed to take pleasure in coming to him, hearing him, following him, and submitting to his baptism. The expression, "for a season," seems purposely used to remind the Jews of the very temporary and transitory nature of the impressions which John's ministry produced on them. Stier remarks,— "Man generally, even a prophet, can only give light by burning, like a lighted candle, until he is burnt out, and his mission on earth ceases. Thus did the Baptist burn, brightly but rapidly." Burkitt remarks,— "It has been an old practice among professors not to like their pastors long, though they have been never such burning and shining lights. John was not changed, but his hearers were changed. He did burn and shine in the candlestick with equal zeal and lustre to the last, but they had changed their thoughts of him." v36.—[But I have greater witness...John.] This means, "although John the Baptist was a witness to My being the Messiah, and the Son of God, his was not the only testimony I bid you receive. There is testimony even more important than his, namely, that of My miracles." The Greek means literally, "the greater witness;"— "The witness that I have is greater." Flacius suggests that our Lord here and in the preceding verse reminds the Jews how willing they were at first to receive John's ministry, and almost seemed to think he was the Messiah. Yet all this time "John did no miracle."— But when the true Messiah appeared, doing mighty "works," the Jews did not show him even as much attention as they had shown to John. [The works...Father hath given, etc.] This is a distinct appeal to miracles, as an important proof of our Lord's Messiahship and Divinity. Four times in this Gospel we find the same appeal. (John 3:2; John 10:25; John 15:24.) The evidence of miracles should never be lightly esteemed. We are apt to underrate their value because they were wrought so long ago. But in the days when they were wrought they were great facts, which demanded the attention of all who saw them, and could not be evaded. Unless the Jews could explain them away, they were bound, as honest and reasonable men, to believe our Lord's Divine mission. That they really were wrought the Jews never appear to have denied. In fact they dared not attempt to deny them. What they did do was to ascribe them to Satanic agency. All who attempt to deny the reality of our Lord's miracles in the present day, would do well to remember that those who had the best opportunity of judging, namely, the men who saw these miracles, and lived within hearing of them, never disputed the fact that they were wrought. If the enemies of our Lord could have proved that His miracles were only tricks, legerdemain, and impostures, it stands to reason they would have been only too glad to show it to the world, and to silence Him for ever. Five things should always be noted about our Lord's miracles. (1.) Their number: they were not a few only, but very many indeed. (2.) Their greatness: they were not little, but mighty interferences with the ordinary course of nature. (3.) Their publicity: they were generally not done in a corner, but in open day, and before many witnesses, and often before enemies. (4.) Their character: they were almost always works of love, mercy, and compassion, helpful and beneficial to man, and not mere barren exhibitions of power. (5.) Their direct appeal to men's senses: they were visible, and would bear any examination. The difference between them and the boasted miracles of the Church of Rome, on all these points, is striking and instructive. The manner in which our Lord speaks of His miracles is very remarkable. He calls them,— "The works that the Father hath given me that I should finish." He carefully avoids the appearance of want of unity between the Father and Himself, even in the working of miracles. They are not works which He did of His own independent will, but "works which the Father hath given me," works which it had been arranged in the eternal counsels the Son should work, when He became man and dwelt upon earth. Precisely the same expression is used elsewhere about "the words" our Lord spake, as here about "the works:" "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me." (John 17:8.) v37.—[And the Father himself....witness of me.] There is undeniable difficulty about these words. It is not clear to what "witness of the Father" our Lord here refers. (a.) Some, as Chrysostom, Brentius, Bullinger, Gualter, Ferus, Toletus, Barradius, Cartwright, Chemnitius, Rollock, Jansenius, Trapp, Baxter, Hammond, Burkitt, Lampe, Bengel, Henry, Scott, Gill, think that our Lord refers to the audible testimony borne to Him by the Father at His baptism, and at the transfiguration, when He said,— "This is my beloved Son, hear him." (Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5.) But it surely is a capital objection to this theory, that this voice of the Father was in all probability heard by nobody excepting John the Baptist at the baptism, and Peter, James, and John at the transfiguration. At this rate it would be entirely a private testimony, and of no avail to the general body of the Jewish nation. (b.) Some, as Theophylact, Euthymius, Rupertus, Calvin, Cocceius, Pearce, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Tittman, A. Clark, D. Brown, Alford, Burgon, think that our Lord refers to the testimony the Father has borne to Him generally throughout the Old Testament Scriptures, and that the sentence before us should be taken in close connection with the next verse but one, beginning, "Search the Scriptures." In fact that expression would then be the explanation of our Lord's meaning. Of the two views I decidedly prefer the second one. It certainly seems the least difficult, and open to the fewest objections. There is a third view, supported by Olshausen and Bucer, viz., that the "witness" here means the inward witness of the Spirit in the hearts of believers. This, however, appears to me wholly out of the question. It is a witness that would be useless to the world at large. Both here and elsewhere we must take care that we do not attach the idea of "inferiority" to the expression "sent'' by the Father. Rollock remarks,— "It is quite possible that an equal may send an equal to discharge some office." Cyril remarks,— "Mission and obedience, being sent and obeying, do not take away equality of power in the sender and the sent one." [Ye have neither heard....seen his shape.] This appears to be a parenthetical sentence, as well as the verse that follows. It certainly seems to strengthen the view that when our Lord spoke of His Father "bearing witness," He could not have meant the audible witness of His voice at the baptism or transfiguration. In fact the sentence seems purposely to preclude the notion. It is as though our Lord said, "Do not suppose that I mean any audible testimony of voice, or apparition, or vision, when I speak of My Father bearing witness to me. I mean testimony of a very different kind, even the testimony of His Word." The expression "not seen His shape," teaches the same great truth we find elsewhere,— viz., that the Father is invisible, and has never been seen by mortal man. He who appeared to Abraham was the Second Person of the Trinity, and not the Father. Paul says distinctly of the Father,— "whom no man hath seen, nor can see." (1 Timothy 6:16.) The idea of artists and painters, when they represent the Father as an aged man, is a mere irreverent invention of their own brains, without the slightest warrant of Scripture. Rupertus and Ferus suggest that the latter part of this verse was spoken to prevent the Jews thinking that our Lord spoke of Joseph, His supposed father. This, however, seems a rather improbable and fanciful idea. v38.—[And ye have not his word, &c.] This verse seems meant to remind the Jews that with all their pretended reverence for God, and affected zeal against blasphemies of Him, they were really ignorant of God's mind. Their reverence for Him was only a form. Their zeal for Him was a blind fanaticism. They knew no more of His mind than of His shape or voice. They were not acquainted with His Word. It did not dwell in their hearts and guide their religion. They proved their own ignorance by not believing Him whom the Father had sent. Had they really been familiar with the writings of the Old Testament they would have believed. Our Lord evidently implies that real knowledge of God's Word will always lead a man to faith in Christ. Where there is no faith we may rightly assume the Bible is either not read, or read in a wrong spirit. Ignorance and unbelief will go together. Locke holds the curious opinion, that the "word" in this verse means the "Personal Word," as at John 1:1. "Ye have not Me, the Eternal Word, dwelling in your hearts." But Christ nowhere calls Himself "the Word," and the idea does not harmonize with the context. Ecolampadius thinks that in this and the preceding verse there is a reference to Deuteronomy 18:15-19, where the Lord promised a prophet to the Jews like unto Moses, because they had said,— "Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not." He thinks our Lord reminds them of this. God had fulfilled His promise, and sent them a prophet like unto Moses, and now they would not believe on Him! v39.—[Search the Scriptures.] This famous sentence is interpreted two different ways. (a.) Some, as Cyril, Erasmus, Ecolampadius, Beza, Brentius, Piscator, Camero, Poole, Toletus, Lightfoot, Lampe, Bengel, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Tholuck, A. Clark, Scholefield, Barnes, Burgon, D. Brown, Webster, think that our Lord spoke in the indicative mood, simply making an assertion,— "Ye do search." (b.) Some, as Chrysostom, Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius, Luther, Calvin, Cartwright, Gualter, Grotius, Rollock, Ferus, Calovius, Jansenius, Cocceius, Barradius, Musculus, Nifanius, Maldonatus, Cornelius á Lapide, Leigh, Whitby, Hammond, Stier, Alford, Wordsworth, think that He spoke in the imperative mood, giving a command,— "Search,"— as our version gives it. I decidedly prefer this latter view. It is more forcible, and more in keeping with our Lord's general style of address. Above all it seems to me to agree far better with the context. Our Lord had told the Jews that His Father had borne witness of Him, though not by audible voice, nor by visible apparition. How then had He borne witness? They would find it in His Word. "Go and search your own Scriptures," our Lord seems to say. "Examine them, and become really acquainted with their contents; you will find that they testify clearly and distinctly of Me. If you wish to know God the Father's testimony to Me, search the Scriptures." The word rendered "search" means "search minutely and diligently." It appears to me intentionally used, to show that the Jews should not be content with mere reading. The Septuagint version of Pro 2:4, has an expression like it. Chrysostom remarks,— "When Christ referred the Jews to the Scriptures, He sent them not to a mere reading, but to a careful and considerate search. He said not, 'read,' but, 'search.' Since the sayings about Him required great attention (for they had been concealed from the beginning for the advantage of men of that time), He bids them now dig down with care, that they might discern what lay in the depths below. These sayings were not on the surface, nor were they cast forth to open view, but lay like some treasure hidden very deep." Some, who think the word "search" should be taken as an indicative, "ye search," maintain that our Lord spoke ironically, and meant, "Ye pretend to make a minute investigation of Scripture, and search into the letter of it, but never get any further." I can see little ground for this view. The word "search" is never used in a bad sense in Scripture. (1 Peter 1:11.) The chief argument in favour of the "indicative" side of the question is the notorious Rabbinical custom of minutely scrutinizing and reverencing every syllable of Scripture. To this custom of honouring the letter of Scripture, while neglecting its spirit, many advocates of the "indicative" here think that our Lord referred. Brentius gives a full account of the length to which the Jews went in their reverence for the letter of Scripture, such as counting the letters of each book, etc., and thinks that this was in our Lord's mind. I cannot however agree with this view. [In them ye think ye have eternal life.] In this sentence the first "ye" must be taken emphatically, as in John 5:33. "Think" does not imply that it was a doubtful point, or mere matter of opinion. It is rather, "Ye yourselves think, and think rightly,— it is one of the dogmas of your faith,— that ye have in the Scriptures the way to eternal life pointed out." Chemnitius remarks,— "The words 'ye think' mean that common persuasion and opinion of all men concerning Scripture, which, like an axiom in science, is established, firm, and certain." Let it be noted that many Christians are just in the unsatisfactory state of the Jews here described. Like them, they "think," and hold it as a dogma of their creed, that they "have eternal life in the Scriptures." But, like them, they never read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest what Scripture contains. Ecolampadius remarks,— "Scripture alone does not make a man any the better, nor even preaching, by itself, except by the Holy Ghost aiding. It is the peculiar office of the external Word to supply testimony; but it is the Spirit of God alone that can make the heart of man assent." [They are they which testify of me.] This sentence is a strong and weighty declaration of the value of the Old Testament Scriptures. It was to them exclusively, of course, that our Lord referred. He says, "they testify of me." In direct prophecies, in promises, in typical persons, in typical ceremonies, the Old Testament Scripture all through testifies of Christ. We read them to very little purpose if we do not discern this. Ferus remarks that there are three ways in which the Scriptures testify of Christ. (1.) Generally: they are as it were the voice of the uncreated Word, ever speaking to man in every part of them. (2.) In figures: the paschal lamb, the brazen serpent, and all the sacrifices of the law were witnesses of Christ. (3.) In direct prophecies. Let us note in this verse the high honour which our Lord puts on the Old Testament Scriptures. He distinctly endorses the Jewish Canon of inspired writings. Those modern writers who labour to depreciate them, and bring them into disrepute, show very little of Christ's mind. Much infidelity begins with an ignorant contempt of the Old Testament. Stier remarks,— "Israel, possessing still the Old Testament, will enter into the kingdom, when the despisers of Scripture in the final unbelief of Christendom will be judged and condemned." Let us note further what a plain duty it is to read the Scriptures. Men have no right to expect spiritual light if they neglect the great treasury of all light. If even of the Old Testament our Lord said, "Search," "it testifies of me," how much more is it a duty to search the whole Bible! An idle neglect of the Bible is one secret of the ignorant formal Christianity which is so widely prevalent in these latter days. God's blessing on a diligent study of the Scripture is strikingly illustrated in the case of the Bereans. (Acts 17:11.) THIS passage concludes our Lord Jesus Christ's wondrous defense of His own divine mission. It is a conclusion worthy of the defense, full of heart-searching appeals to the consciences of His enemies, and rich in deep truths. A mighty sermon is followed by a mighty application. Let us mark, in this passage, the reason why many souls are lost. The Lord Jesus says to the unbelieving Jews,— "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life." These words are a golden sentence, which ought to be engraven in our memories, and treasured up in our minds. It is want of will to come to Christ for salvation that will be found, at last, to have shut the many out of heaven.— It is not men's sins. All manner of sin may be forgiven.— It is not any decree of God. We are not told in the Bible of any whom God has only created to be destroyed.— It is not any limit in Christ's work of redemption. He has paid a price sufficient for all mankind.— It is something far more than this. It is man's own innate unwillingness to come to Christ, repent, and believe. Either from pride, or laziness, or love of sin, or love of the world, the many have no mind, or wish, or heart, or desire to seek life in Christ. "God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." (1 John 5:11.) But men stand still, and will not stir hand or foot to get life. And this is the whole reason why many of the lost are not saved. This is a painful and solemn truth, but one that we can never know too well. It contains a first principle in Christian theology. Thousands, in every age, are constantly laboring to shift the blame of their condition from off themselves. They talk of their inability to change. They tell you complacently, that they cannot help being what they are! They know, forsooth, that they are wrong, but they cannot be different!— It will not do. Such talk will not stand the test of the Word of Christ before us. The unconverted are what they are because they have no will to be better. "Light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light." (John 3:19.) The words of the Lord Jesus will silence many: "I would have gathered you, and ye would not be gathered." (Matthew 23:37.) Let us mark, secondly, in this passage, one principal cause of unbelief. The Lord Jesus says to the Jews,— "How can ye believe which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh of God only?" He meant by that saying, that they were not honest in their religion. With all their apparent desire to hear and learn, they cared more in reality for pleasing man than God. In this state of mind they were never likely to believe. A deep principle is contained in this saying of our Lord's, and one that deserves special attention. True faith does not depend merely on the state of man's head and understanding, but on the state of his heart. His mind may be convinced. His conscience may be pricked. But so long as there is anything the man is secretly loving more than God, there will be no true faith. The man himself may be puzzled, and wonder why he does not believe. He does not see that he is like a child sitting on the lid of his box, and wishing to open it, but not considering that his own weight keeps it shut. Let a man make sure that he honestly and really desires first the praise of God. It is the want of an honest heart which makes many stick fast in their religion all their days, and die at length without peace. Those who complain that they hear, and approve, and assent, but make no progress, and cannot get any hold on Christ, should ask themselves this simple question,— "Am I honest?— Am I sincere?— Do I really desire first the praise of God?" Let us mark, lastly, in this passage, the manner in which Christ speaks of Moses. He says to the Jews,— "Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." These words demand our special attention in these latter days. That there really was such a person as Moses,— that he really was the author of the writings commonly ascribed to him,— on both these points our Lord's testimony is distinct. "He wrote of me." Can we suppose for a moment that our Lord was only accommodating Himself to the prejudices and traditions of His hearers, and that He spoke of Moses as a writer, though He knew in His heart that Moses never wrote at all? Such an idea is profane. It would make out our Lord to have been dishonest.— Can we suppose for a moment that our Lord was ignorant about Moses, and did not know the wonderful discoveries which learned men, falsely so called, have made in the nineteenth century? Such an idea is ridiculous blasphemy. To imagine the Lord Jesus speaking ignorantly in such a chapter as the one before us, is to strike at the root of all Christianity.— There is but one conclusion about the matter. There was such a person as Moses. The writings commonly ascribed to him were written by him. The facts recorded in them are worthy of all credit. Our Lord's testimony is an unanswerable argument. The skeptical writers against Moses and the Pentateuch have greatly erred. Let us beware of handling the Old Testament irreverently, and allowing our minds to doubt the truth of any part of it, because of alleged difficulties. The simple fact that the writers of the New Testament continually refer to the Old Testament, and speak even of the most miraculous events recorded in it as undoubtedly true, should silence our doubts. Is it at all likely, probable, or credible, that we of the nineteenth century are better informed about Moses than Jesus and His Apostles? God forbid that we should think so! Then let us stand fast, and not doubt that every word in the Old Testament, as well as in the New, was given by inspiration of God. ================== Notes— v40.—[And ye will not come to me...life.] The connection between this verse and the preceding one is not very clear. It is one of those abrupt elliptical transitions which occur frequently in John's writings. I conjecture the link must be something of this kind: "The Scriptures testify plainly of Me. And yet in the face of this testimony ye have no will or inclination to come to Me by faith, that ye may have eternal life through Me." This verse evidently begins the third part of our Lord's address to the Jews. He had declared the relation between Himself and God the Father. He had brought forward the evidence of His own Divine commission, and His claim to be received as the Messiah. And now He concludes by a most heart-piercing appeal to the consciences of His enemies, in which He exposes the true state of their hearts, and the real reasons why they did not believe in Him. If ever men were plainly dealt with, and received home-thrusts as to their own spiritual condition, it was on this occasion. In reading the conclusion of this chapter, one cannot but feel that a miraculous restraint must have been put on our Lord's enemies. Otherwise it is difficult to understand how they could have allowed Him to bring such cutting and truthful charges against them. If ministers desire a warrant for dealing plainly with their hearers, and addressing them directly and personally about their sins, they have only to look at their Divine Master's words in this passage. The opening charge that our Lord makes, "Ye will not come to me," misses much of its force in the English language. It is not the future tense of "come" that is used in the Greek. Two distinct verbs are employed. The right meaning is, "Ye do not will to come,"— "Ye have no heart, desire, or inclination to come to Me." Let it be noted here that (1.) we are all by nature dead in sins;— that (2.) spiritual life is laid up for sinners in Christ alone; He is the fountain of life;— that (3.) in order to receive benefit from Christ men must come to him by faith, and believe: believing is coming;— and, finally, (4.) that the real reasons why men do not come to Christ, and consequently die in their sins, is their want of will to come. Let it be carefully noted, that both here and elsewhere the loss of man's soul is always attributed in Scripture to man's own want of will to be saved. It is not any decree of God. It is not God's unwillingness to receive. It is not any limitation of Christ's redeeming work and atonement. It is not any want of wide, broad, free, full invitations to repent and believe. It is simply and entirely man's own fault,— his want of will. For ever let us cleave to this doctrine. Man's salvation, if saved, is entirely of God. Man's ruin, if lost, is entirely of himself. He "loves darkness rather than light." He will have his own way. We should observe in this concluding part of our Lord's address, that He charges the Jews with four distinct sins: (1.) want of real will to come to Him, (2.) want of real love to God, (3.) undue desire of man's praise, (4.) want of real faith in Moses' writings. v41.—[I receive not honour from men.] The connection between these words and the preceding verse is again not very clear. I conjecture that it must be as follows:— "I do not say these things, as if I desired the praise and honour of man. I do not complain of your not coming to Me, as if I only came into the world to seek man's praise. It is not on My own account that I mention your unbelief, but on yours, because it shows the state of your hearts. Do not suppose that I stand in need of followers, and am covetous of man's favour." v42.—[But I know you...not the love of God, &c.] The sense and connection here appear to be as follows:— "But the plain truth is, that I know and have long known the state of your hearts, and I know that you have no real love of God in you. You profess to worship the one true God, and to give Him honour. But you show by your conduct, that with all your profession you do not really love God." To a Jewish hearer this tremendous charge must have been peculiarly galling. It was a charge that none but our Lord could make with equal decision, because He read men's hearts, and knew what was in them. The word "I know" is literally "I have known." Alford paraphrases the sentence,— "By long trial and bearing with your manners these many generations, and personally also, I have known, and do know you." In another place we find our Lord naming this sin as one of the special sins of the Pharisees. "Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue, and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God." (Luke 11:42.) Ferus remarks that the incredulity of the Jews did not arise from want of evidence, but want of love towards God. v43.—[I am come in my father's name...receive me not.] This sentence contains a proof of the assertion made in the preceding verse. "You show that you have no real love for God, by your not receiving Me who have come in my Father's name, and desire nothing so much as His honour. If you really loved and honoured God as you professed to do, you would gladly receive and honour His Son." [If another...in his own name, Him ye will receive.] In this sentence our Lord supposes a case, to show the corrupt and carnal state of the Jews' hearts. "If another public teacher shall appear, giving himself out to be some great one, not seeking God's honour, and doing all in God's name, but aiming to exalt himself, and get honour to himself, you will receive and believe him. You reject Me the true Son of God. You are ready to receive any false pretender who comes among you, though he may give no honour to the God whom you profess to worship. It is true then that you have no real love of God in you." I believe decidedly that our Lord spoke these words prophetically. He had in view the many false Christs and false Messiahs who arose within the first hundred years after His death, and by whom so many of the Jews were invariably deluded. According to Stier no less than sixty-four false Messiahs appeared to them, and were more or less believed. The readiness with which they believed these impostors is a remarkable historical fact, and a striking fulfilment of the words before us. They proved as forward to believe these pretenders to a Divine mission who came in their own names, as they had been backward to believe our Lord. I may add, however, that I am one of those who doubt whether the words of our Lord have even yet received their complete fulfilment. I think it highly probable that the world may yet see a personal Antichrist arise, who will succeed in obtaining credence from a vast portion of the Jewish nation. Then, and not till then, when Antichrist has appeared, this verse will be completely accomplished. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, Alcuin, Heinsius, take this view. Stier remarks, "He of whom the Lord here prophecies, is finally Antichrist, with his open and avowed denial of God and of Christ; with his most daring 'I,' before which all the proud will humbly bow down, because they will find themselves in him, and will honour him as their true God. As the Father reveals Himself in Christ, so will Satan manifest himself in Antichrist, and give him all his work and witness, and his own honour as the prince of this world; and the wicked will yield themselves to him, because through unbelief they have already fallen into his nature, and fitly belong to him." Wordsworth remarks, "The Fathers were generally of opinion, grounded on this passage, that Antichrist would be received by the Jews." v44.—[How can ye believe, etc., etc.] This verse contains a very important principle. The substance of the meaning seems to be as follows:— Our Lord tells the Jews that they were not likely to believe, so long as they cared more for the praise of man than the praise of God. The true cause of their unbelief was a want of honesty and godly sincerity. With all their professed zeal for God, they did not really care so much for pleasing Him as for pleasing man. In this state of mind they were never likely to have faith, or to come to the knowledge of the truth. "How can ye believe, receiving and seeking honour from one another as ye do now?" It is not possible that you can believe, until you cease from your present earthly-mindedness, and honestly desire God's praise more than man's. The great principle contained in the verse is the close connection between the state of a man's heart and his possessing the gift of faith. Believing or not believing, to have faith or not to have faith, is not a thing that depends only on a man's head being satisfied, and his intellect convinced. It depends far more on the state of a man's heart. If a man is not thoroughly honest in his professed desire to find out the truth in religion,— if he secretly cherishes any idol which he is resolved not to give up,— if he privately cares for anything more than God's praise,— he will go on to the end of his days doubting, perplexed, dissatisfied, and restless, and will never find the way to peace. His insincerity of heart is an insuperable barrier in the way of his believing. There is a mine of wisdom in the expression, "An honest and good heart." (Luke 8:15.) For want of it many a one complains that he cannot get comfort in religion, and cannot see his way towards heaven, when the truth is that his own dishonesty of heart is the cause. There is something he loves more than God. The consequence is that he never feels an honest will to believe. The "can" in this verse should be compared with the "will" in John 5:40. "Ye cannot because ye will not." [From God only.] This expression would be more literally rendered, "from the only God,"— the one true God, whom the Jews boasted that they alone knew and worshipped. Doddridge remarks that the whole verse "has much more spirit in it, if we consider it as applied to the members of the Sanhedrim, who had such distinguished titles of honour, than if we only take it as spoken to a mixed multitude." If, as many suppose, our Lord was making a formal defense of Himself and His divine mission before the great Ecclesiastical Assembly of the Jews, His words in this verse would come home to His hearers with stinging power. v45.—[Do not think that I will accuse, etc.] We must not suppose that our Lord literally meant that there was any real likelihood of Moses or Himself standing up to make a formal accusation against the Jews. What He did mean was, that not to believe Him was not to believe Moses. There was no need for Him to accuse them of unbelief. Moses himself, for whom they professed such respect, might be their accuser, and prove them guilty. "Even now," He says, "Moses accuseth you. His writings, daily read in your synagogue, are a constant witness of your unbelief." There may also, it is highly probable, be a reference here to the Song of Moses, where he predicts the unbelief of the people, and desires the book of the law to be "put in the side of the ark, that it may be there for a witness against thee." (Deuteronomy 31:26.) Chemnitius remarks, "What the Lord says to the Jews, is exactly as if I were to say to the Papists, It is not I, but the very Fathers whose authority ye allege in favour of your superstition, who will accuse you of impiety. Or as if we were to say to the Pope, It is not we who accuse and condemn thee, but Christ himself, whose vicar thou callest thyself; and Peter whose successor thou wilt have thyself: and Paul whose sword thou pretendest to bear: they it is who will accuse thee." Beza makes much the same remark, and observes, that none will be more opposed to the Roman Catholics in the judgment-day than Mary and the saints in whom they profess to trust! The notion of some Romanists that the expression "Moses in whom ye trust," justifies the invocation of saints, and putting confidence in them as mediators, is, as Chemnitius observes, too weak and groundless to need refutation. v46.—[For had ye believed Moses....me.] These words are simply an amplification of the idea in the preceding verse. If the Jews had really believed Moses, they could not have helped believing Christ. The witness of Moses to Christ, was so distinct, express, and unmistakable, that true belief in his writings must inevitably have led them to belief in Christ. [He wrote of me.] These words are very remarkable. In what sense our Lord used them, we cannot exactly know. At the very least we may conclude He meant that throughout the five books of Moses, by direct prophecy, by typical persons, by typical ceremonies, in many ways, and in divers manners, Moses had written of Him. There is probably a depth of meaning in the Pentateuch that has never yet been fully fathomed. We shall probably find at the last day that Christ was in many a chapter and many a verse, and yet we knew it not. There is a fulness in all Scripture far beyond our conception. Let us note carefully that our Lord distinctly speaks of Moses as a real person who, as a matter of history, lived and wrote books, and of his writings as true genuine writings deserving of all credit, and of undeniable authority. In the face of such an expression as this, it is a mournful fact that any man called a Christian can throw doubt on the existence of Moses, or on the authority of the books attributed to him. To say, as some have done, that our Lord was only accommodating Himself to the conventional language of the times, and that He did not really mean to assert His own belief either in the existence of Moses, or the authority of his writings, is to charge Him with downright dishonesty. It represents Him as One aiding and countenancing the dissemination of a lie! To say, as some have done, that our Lord, born of a Jewish woman, and brought up among Jews, was not above the ignorant prejudices of the Jews, and did not really know that Moses ever existed, and that his writings are full of mistakes, is to talk downright blasphemy and nonsense. Fancy the eternal Son of God at any time talking ignorantly! Fancy above all that any trace of Jewish ignorance would be likely to be found in this chapter of John's gospel, in which, above all other chapters perhaps, our Lord's divine knowledge is most strikingly brought out! v47.—[If ye believe not his writings, etc.] This verse is an extension of the thought contained in the preceding one, and a solemn and mournful conclusion of the whole address. There is evidently an intentional contrast between "writings" and "words," as if our Lord would remind the Jews that "writings" are generally more relied upon than "sayings."— "If you do not really believe what your own honoured lawgiver Moses WROTE,— and it is plain that you do not,— it is not likely that you will believe what I SAY. If you have no real faith in the things written in your Scriptures by that very Moses, for whom you profess such reverence, your favourite teacher and lawgiver, it is not to be wondered at that you have no faith in what I say, and that I speak to you in vain." The Greek word used here for "writings" is very remarkable. It is generally translated "letters," as Luke 23:38. In 2 Timothy 3:15, it is rendered "Scriptures." To my mind it is a strong indirect evidence in favour of the verbal inspiration of Scripture. There is a sense in which these words should ring painfully in the ears of all the modern assailants of the Mosaic writings. It is just as true now, I firmly believe, as it was eighteen hundred years ago. They cannot divide Moses and Christ. If they do not believe the one, they will find sooner or later that they do not believe the other. If they begin with casting off Moses and not believing his writings, they will find in the end that to be consistent they must cast off Christ. If they will not have the Old Testament, they will discover at last that they cannot have the New. The two are so linked together that they cannot be separated. "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." In concluding the notes on this wonderful chapter, one would like to know how this marvelous address was received by those who heard it. But here we meet with one of the peculiar "silences" of Scripture. Not one word is written to tell us what the Jews of Jerusalem thought of our Lord's argument, or what effect it had upon them. Our own duty is clear. Let us take heed that it has some effect on ourselves. The amazing fullness of our Lord's teaching appears most strikingly in the address contained in this chapter. Within the short span of twenty-nine verses, we find no less than eleven mighty subjects brought forward: (1.) The intimate relation of the Father and the Son. (2.) The divine commission and dignity of the Son. (3.) The privileges of the man who believes. (4.) The quickening of the spiritually dead. (5.) The judgment. (6.) The resurrection of the body. (7.) The value of miracles. (8.) The Scriptures. (9.) The corruption of man's will the secret of man's ruin. (10.) The love of man's praise the cause of unbelief. (11.) The importance of the writings of Moses. THESE verses describe one of our Lord's most remarkable miracles. Of all the great works that He did, none was done so publicly as this, and before so many witnesses. Of all the miracles related in the Gospels, this is the only one which all the four Gospel-writers alike record. This fact alone (like the four times repeated account of the crucifixion and resurrection) is enough to show that it is a miracle demanding special attention. We have, for one thing, in this miracle, a lesson about Christ's almighty power. We see our Lord feeding five thousand men with "five barley loaves and two small fishes." We see clear proof that a miraculous event took place in the "twelve baskets of fragments" that remained after all had eaten. Creative power was manifestly exercised. Food was called into existence that did not exist before. In healing the sick, and raising the dead, something was amended or restored that had already existed. In feeding five thousand men with five loaves, something must have been created which before had no existence. Such a history as this ought to be specially instructive and encouraging to all who endeavor to do good to souls. It shows us the Lord Jesus "able to save to the uttermost." He is One who has all power over dead hearts. Not only can He mend that which is broken,— build up that which is ruined,— heal that which is sick,— strengthen that which is weak. He can do even greater things than these. He can call into being that which was not before, and call it out of nothing. We must never despair of any one being saved. So long as there is life there is hope. Reason and sense may say that some poor sinner is too hardened, or too old to be converted. Faith will reply,— "Our Master can create as well as renew. With a Savior who, by His Spirit, can create a new heart, nothing is impossible." We have, for another thing, in this miracle, a lesson about the office of ministers. We see the apostles receiving the bread from our Lord's hands, after He had blessed it, and distributing it to the multitude. It was not their hands that made it increase and multiply, but their Master's. It was His almighty power that provided an unfailing supply. It was their work to receive humbly, and distribute faithfully. Now here is a lively emblem of the work which a true minister of the New Testament is meant to do. He is not a mediator between God and man. He has no power to put away sin, or impart grace. His whole business is to receive the bread of life which his Master provides, and to distribute it among the souls among whom he labors. He cannot make men value the bread, or receive it. He cannot make it soul-saving, or life-giving, to any one. This is not his work. For this he is not responsible. His whole business is to be a faithful distributor of the food which his Divine Master has provided; and that done, his office is discharged. We have, lastly, in this miracle, a lesson about the sufficiency of the Gospel for the wants of all mankind. We see the Lord Jesus supplying the hunger of a huge multitude of five thousand men. The provision seemed, at first sight, utterly inadequate for the occasion. To satisfy so many craving mouths with such scanty fare, in such a wilderness, seemed impossible. But the event showed that there was enough and to spare. There was not one who could complain that he was not filled. There can be no doubt that this was meant to teach the adequacy of Christ's Gospel to supply the necessities of the whole world. Weak, and feeble, and foolish as it may seem to man, the simple story of the Cross is enough for all the children of Adam in every part of the globe. The tidings of Christ's death for sinners, and the atonement made by that death, is able to meet the hearts and satisfy the consciences of all nations, and peoples, and kindreds, and tongues. Carried by faithful messengers, it feeds and supplies all ranks and classes. "The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18.) Five barley loaves and two small fishes seemed scanty provision for a hungry crowd. But blessed by Christ, and distributed by His disciples, they were more than sufficient. Let us never doubt for a moment, that the preaching of Christ crucified,— the old story of His blood, and righteousness, and substitution,— is enough for all the spiritual necessities of all mankind. It is not worn out. It is not obsolete. It has not lost its power. We want nothing new,— nothing more broad and kind,— nothing more intellectual,— nothing more efficacious. We want nothing but the true bread of life which Christ bestows, distributed faithfully among starving souls. Let men sneer or ridicule as they will. Nothing else can do good in this sinful world. No other teaching can fill hungry consciences, and give them peace. We are all in a wilderness. We must feed on Christ crucified, and the atonement made by His death, or we shall die in our sins. ================== Notes— v1.—[After these things.] The remark made at John 5:1 applies here. The expression denotes an interval of time having elapsed between the end of the fifth chapter and the beginning of the sixth. John passes over all the events which happened at the conclusion of our Lord's defense of Himself at Jerusalem. In fact, if the feast spoken of at the beginning of the fifth chapter was really the passover, almost an entire year of our Lord's ministry is unnoticed by John. The events in this chapter, we should remark, are the only events in our Lord's ministry in Galilee described by John, excepting the miracle of turning the water into wine at Cana, and the healing of the ruler's son. (Chapter 2. and 4.) [Went over the sea of Galilee....Tiberias.] This sea so-called was a fresh-water lake in Galilee, through which the Jordan runs. According to Thomson, one of the most recent and accurate travelers in the Holy Land, it is about fourteen miles long, and nine wide, at the widest part. It lies no less than six hundred feet below the level of the sea, and is often agitated by sudden and violent storms. Tiberias was a town on the west side of the lake, built by Herod about the time of our Lord's birth, and comparatively a modern place in our Lord's time. In the days of Josephus, forty years after our Lord's crucifixion, Tiberias had become an important city. It was spared by the Romans, when Vespasian's army destroyed almost every other city in Galilee, for its adherence to the Roman cause, and was made capital of the province. John is the only Gospel-writer who calls the lake the "sea of Tiberias." His doing so is an incidental confirmation of the opinion that he wrote much later than Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and after the taking of Jerusalem. He naturally used the name by which the lake was best known when he wrote, and most familiar to the Gentile readers whom he had especially in view. The reason of our Lord going over the sea would appear to be His desire to withdraw Himself from public notice (Mark 6:31), and perhaps from the persecution of Herod's party, after the death of John the Baptist. Comparing John's account with that of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it seems most likely that he "went over the sea" from the west coast, and landed on the north-east side of the lake, not far from Bethsaida. Luke tells us distinctly that the miracle which John here records, was wrought in "a desert place, belonging to the city, called Bethsaida." (Luke 9:10.) Add to this the fact that no less than three of our Lord's disciples were inhabitants of Bethsaida, viz., Philip, Andrew, and Peter, and our Lord's retirement to this neighbourhood seems natural and reasonable.— The notion held by many that there were two Bethsaidas, one in Galilee, where Andrew, Peter, and Philip lived, and one in Gaulanitis, where this miracle of feeding the multitude was wrought, seems both groundless and needless. Bethsaida was at the head of the lake, in Galilee, near the point where the river Jordan entered the lake, and the district belonging to it extended most probably beyond the river into Gaulanitis. Thomson shows this satisfactorily. v2.—[A great multitude followed....diseased.] There seems no reason to suppose that this multitude followed our Lord for any but low motives. They "saw His miracles:" that was all. Some few, perhaps, were in doubt and suspense, wondering whether He who wrought such miracles could possibly be the Messiah. The great majority probably "followed" from that vague, idle curiosity and love of excitement, which are the principles that gather nearly every crowd in the world. Mark says that "the people saw them departing, and many knew him: and ran afoot thither out of all cities, and outwent them, and came together unto him." (Mark 6:33.) This they might easily do by going round the head of the lake, to the point where Bethsaida was. v3.—[Jesus went up into a mountain.] The Greek here would be more correctly rendered "into the mountain." Whether there is any special reason for this we cannot tell.— It may be the one mountain which stood there, in contradistinction to the more level ground composing the district. Thomson, the American traveler, expressly says that there is a "bold headland" here, with "a smooth grassy spot" at the base, "capable of seating many thousand people."— It may possibly be "that particular hill" to which our Lord was in the habit of going when He visited the district near Bethsaida.— It may be the "hill country" generally, or mountainous district near Bethsaida. [His disciples.] This expression includes not only the twelve who had been chosen and set apart by our Lord by this time, but many others who professed themselves His disciples. Many of them, it would appear from this very chapter (John 6:66), were not really believers, and in course of time fell away. If Christ Himself had many such disciples and followers, ministers now-a-days (even the very best) must not be surprised to find the same state of things among their people. v4.—[The passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.] John's habit of explaining Jewish customs for the benefit of Gentile readers, should here be noticed. The approach of the passover feast is no doubt specially mentioned in order to show the suitableness of our Lord's discourse in this chapter to the season of the year. The minds of His hearers would doubtless be thinking of the passover lamb, and its flesh about to be eaten and blood about to be sprinkled. Our Lord takes occasion to speak of that "flesh and blood" which must be eaten and drunk by all who would not perish in sin. It is an instance of that divine wisdom with which our Master spoke "words in season," and turned everything to account. Let it be noted that our Lord did not keep this passover in Jerusalem to all appearance, but remained in Galilee. Yet He generally observed all the ordinances of the law of Moses most strictly, and "fulfilled all righteousness." The reason evidently is, as Rollock remarks, that the enmity and persecution of the leading Jews at Jerusalem made it impossible for Him to go there. It would have cut short His ministry and brought on His death before the time. May we not also learn here that the use of outward ordinances and ceremonies is not so absolutely necessary that they can never be dispensed with? Grace, and repentance, and faith are absolutely needful to salvation. Sacraments and ordinances are not. The near approach of the passover may possibly account in part for the crowds who were assembled on this occasion. Not a few of the people perhaps were on their way to Jerusalem, to keep the passover feast, and were drawn out of their road by hearing of our Lord's miracles. v5.—[When Jesus then lifted up His eyes and saw a great company.] We must not conclude from these expressions, that our Lord was suddenly surprised by the appearance of a great crowd. On the contrary, Matthew and Mark both tell us that before He wrought the miracle which we are about to read of, He had felt compassion for the multitude, because they were "as sheep not having a shepherd," and had "taught them many things." (Mark 6:34.)— When this teaching was over, He seems to have taken a survey of the crowd before Him, and seeing how large it was, proceeded to show His tender concern for the wants of men's bodies as well as of their souls. A great crowd is always an impressive and solemn sight. It is an interesting thought that the same eyes which looked compassionately on the crowd here, are still looking at every crowd, and especially at every crowd of persons assembled in God's name. [He saith unto Philip, whence....buy....eat?] Our Lord's reason for asking this question is given in the next verse. But it is worth notice that there was a certain propriety in asking Philip this question, because Philip "was of Bethsaida," the very town near which they were all assembled. (John 1:44.) Our Lord therefore might reasonably appeal to Philip, as one most likely and able to answer His question, whether it were possible to buy bread for such a multitude. He would of course know the capabilities of the neighbourhood. The idea, maintained by Chrysostom, Burgon, and others, that Philip was a disciple peculiarly slow to recognize Christ's Godhead, and therefore requiring special appeals, seems to me a far less satisfactory solution. v6.—[This He said to prove him.] We find the same kind of procedure on other occasions. When our Lord appeared to the two disciples at Emmaus, we read that after His discourse with them, "He made as though He would have gone further." (Luke 24:28.) This was "to prove" whether they really wished for more of His company.— When on another occasion He came to the disciples walking on the sea, Mark says, "He would have passed by them." (Mark 6:48.) When in this very chapter He would draw forth an expression of faith from His disciples, He says, "Will ye also go away?" (John 6:67.) Our Lord knows the sluggishness and coldness of our hearts, and He sees it good to stir our spiritual senses, and draw forth our spiritual desires by such a mode of dealing with us. Explanatory observations like this, made by the Gospel-writer himself, are more frequent in John's Gospel than in any of the other three. [He himself knew...would do.] This would be rendered more literally "what He was about to do." Our Lord's foreknowledge of the miracle He was about to do should be noted. The words He used in the last chapter should be remembered. They were not works which were done by chance and accidentally, in consequence of unforeseen circumstances, but foreseen and predetermined. They were "the works which the Father had given him to finish." (John 5:36.) v7.—[Philip answered Him, Two hundred penny worth, etc.] What quantity of bread this sum would have procured we have no accurate means of knowing. But we may remember that the Roman "denarius," or penny, represented a very much larger sum than a penny does among ourselves. We must remember also that bread was much cheaper then than it is now. The quantity Philip named was probably much larger than we suppose. Burgon thinks that the sum named by Philip was the whole "store of money contained in their common purse,"— viz., about six or seven pounds. But this cannot be proved. v8.—[One of His disciples, Andrew, etc.] Let it be noted here that Andrew, as well as Philip, was a native of the district of Bethsaida, where all these things happened. There is a propriety therefore in his speaking and giving information on the present occasion. v9.—[There is a lad...five barley loaves and two small fishes.] We should note in this verse how small were the provisions which our Lord miraculously multiplied. The fact that one "little boy" (for this is the meaning of the word we render "lad") could carry all the supply that Andrew mentions, is a plain proof that the "loaves" could not have been large, nor the "fish" of great size. The "fishes" were probably small dried fish, such as are not uncommonly used as food now in hot countries, and near the sea of Galilee would be of course common. Barley was regarded, according to the Talmud, as a coarse food, only fit for horses and asses. [What are they among so many.] This expression of Andrew's is purposely reported, no doubt, in order to show how strong was the conviction of our Lord's disciples that they had not sufficient provision to feed the multitude, and then to bring out into clearer light the greatness of the miracle which our Lord wrought. It also helps to prove that the wonderful feeling of the multitude was not a preconcerted and prepared thing, arranged by our Lord and His disciples. Even His own immediate followers were taken by surprise. v10.—[Jesus said, make the men sit down.] This arrangement prevented confusion and preserved order, points of vast importance when any large assembly of people is gathered together. Moreover, it made it less easy to practice any imposition or deceit in the feeding of the multitude. When every man was sitting steadily in his appointed place, no one could be passed over in the distribution of food, without it being observed. Mark tells us that they "sat down in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties." (Mark 6:40.) [There was much grass in the place.] The time of the year when these things happened would be the very time when there was most "grass." It was in the spring-time, just before the passover, when the winter was gone, and the parching heat of summer had not begun. Thomson, the American traveler, reports that at this very day there is an open space of green grass at the foot of a hill, at the very place where in all probability this miracle took place. Let us note our Lord's consideration for the bodily comfort of His followers. He chooses a place where there was "much grass" to sit down on. [So the men sat down...five thousand.] The word "men" here is probably emphatic, in contradistinction to the "women and children," whom Matthew expressly mentions as having been present beside the five thousand men. In the Greek the word is not the same as that rendered "men" in the first clause of this verse. v11.—[Jesus took the loaves...given thanks.] The expression here seems rather to imply a solemn action of prayer and blessing, as well as of giving thanks, as the first preliminary to the mighty miracle about to follow. In fact Luke says, "He took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven He blessed them, and brake, and gave," etc. (Luke 9:16.) This also seems implied in John's subsequent reference to this miracle, where He speaks of "the place where they did eat bread after that the Lord had given thanks." (John 6:23.) The Greek word here used is precisely the same that is used in the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. Matthew and Mark say that our Lord "gave thanks" when He took "the cup." Luke and Paul say that He also did it when He took "the bread." So here we can hardly doubt that blessing and giving thanks went together. The Greek word is the one which we have borrowed and transferred to our own language in the expression "Eucharist." [He distributed to the disciples, etc.] I think there can be no doubt that this was the point at which the mighty miracle here wrought by our Lord came in. As fast as He broke the loaves and the disciples carried them away to distribute them, so fast did the loaves multiply under His hands. It was in the act of breaking and distributing to the disciples that the miraculous multiplication took place. In fact there was a continual act of creation going on. Bread was continually called into existence which did not exist before. The greatness of this miracle is perhaps not sufficiently realized. One loaf and less than half a fish to every thousand men! It is evident there could not have been more than a small morsel for each one without a miraculous increase of the food. Bishop Hall remarks, "He could as well have multiplied the loaves whole; why would He rather do it in the breaking? Was it not to teach us that in the distribution of our goods we should expect His blessing, not in their entireness and reservation? "There is that scattereth and yet increaseth." (Proverbs 11:24.) v12.—[When they were filled.] That expression deserves notice. It is one of the strongest proofs of the reality of the miracle we are reading. It would be impossible to convince five thousand hungry men in a wilderness that they were really filled, if they were not. A few enthusiasts and fanatics might possibly have been found who might have fancied they had eaten when they had not. But it is absurd to suppose that so strong a bodily sensation as hunger could possibly be relieved in five thousand men, if there had not been a real supply of food, and real eating of it. [He said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments, etc.] In this little circumstance again we have a proof, that real food was supplied, and in sufficient quantity for all. There was not merely a morsel for each man, but an abundant supply, enough and to spare. Our Lord's care for little things, and dislike of waste and extravagance, appear strongly in this sentence. It would be well if the principle contained in the words was more remembered by Christians,— "Let nothing be lost." It is a deep principle of very wide application. Time, money, and opportunities of showing kindness and doing good are specially to be remembered in applying the principle. It admits of question whether the "disciples" who distributed the bread on this occasion, and afterwards gathered the fragments, did not include other helpers beside the twelve apostles. The time necessary for the distribution of bread among five thousand people, if only twelve pairs of hands were employed, would prove on calculation to be very great. v13.—[Therefore they gathered....filled twelve baskets, etc.] This simple fact is enough to prove that a mighty miracle had been wrought. Our common sense can tell us that five loaves and two fishes alone could not have filled a single basket. Now if the fragments left after the meal were enough to fill "twelve baskets," there must evidently have been a miraculous multiplication of the food at some stage of the proceedings. The fragments alone were probably fifty times more bulky than the original supply of food with which the meal began. The identity between the number of the baskets filled, and the number of the apostles, will of course strike any reader. One might think that each apostle had a basket. Mark mentions that there were fragments of "fishes" put into the baskets as well as loaves, so that the fishes also were miraculously multiplied as well as the bread. Some early writers, not without justice, call this the greatest miracle that our Lord ever wrought. Perhaps we are poor judges of such points, and little able to make comparisons. But it is certain that on no other occasion did our Lord manifest so clearly His creative power. No doubt it was as easy to Him to cause bread to be, as to say "let there be light," or to make the earth bring forth herbs and corn at the creation of the world. But the miracle was clearly intended to be one which Christians should hold in special remembrance. It is at any rate noteworthy that this is the only passage in Christ's life which all the four Gospel-writers alike record. In this respect the miracle stands alone. The attempts of Neologians to explain away this miracle are simply contemptible and ridiculous. It requires more faith to believe their explanations than to believe the miracle and take it as we find it. None but a person determined to disbelieve all miracles, and cast them out of the Sacred narrative, would ever try to make out (as some actually have tried) that the four times repeated story of the miraculous feeding which we have considered, only meant that the multitude brought out the hidden stores of provisions which they had carried with them, and shared them with one another! v14.—[Then those men.] This probably means the whole crowd and multitude which had been fed on this occasion. [When they had seen the miracle.] Signs and wonders were expected to accompany the appearance of any prophet or messenger from God. Here was a mighty miracle, and at once the minds of all who saw it were excited. [This is of a truth that prophet, etc.] This meant that "prophet like unto Moses," whom all well-instructed Jews expected to appear, and for whose speedy appearing the ministry of John the Baptist had prepared the minds of all the dwellers in Palestine. "Of a truth" would be more literally rendered "truly,"—i. e., really and indeed. "That prophet" would be more literally "the prophet." WE should notice, in these verses, our Lord Jesus Christ's humility. We are told that, after feeding the multitude, He "perceived that they would come and take him by force to make him a king." At once He departed, and left them. He wanted no such honors as these. He had come, "not to be ministered unto, but, to minister and to give his life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28.) We see the same spirit and frame of mind all through our Lord's earthly ministry. From His cradle to His grave He was "clothed with humility." (1 Peter 5:5.) He was born of a poor woman, and spent the first thirty years of His life in a carpenter's house at Nazareth. He was followed by poor companions,— many of them no better than fishermen. He was poor in his manner of living: "The foxes had holes, and the birds of the air their nests: but the Son of man had not where to lay his head." (Matthew 8:20.) When He went on the Sea of Galilee, it was in a borrowed boat. When He rode into Jerusalem, it was on a borrowed ass. When He was buried, it was in a borrowed tomb. "Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor." (2 Corinthians 8:9.) The example is one which ought to be far more remembered than it is. How common are pride, and ambition, and high-mindedness! How rare are humility and lowly-mindedness! How few ever refuse greatness when offered to them! How many are continually seeking great things for themselves, and forgetting the injunction,— "Seek them not"! (Jeremiah 45:5.) Surely it was not for nothing that our Lord, after washing the disciples' feet, said,— "I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done." (John 13:15.) There is little, it may be feared, of that feet-washing spirit among Christians. But whether men will hear or forbear, humility is the queen of the graces. "Tell me," it has been said, "how much humility a man has, and I will tell you how much religion he has." Humility is the first step toward heaven, and the true way to honor. "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:14.) We should notice, secondly, in these verses, the trials through which Christ's disciples had to pass. We are told that they were sent over the lake by themselves, while their Master tarried behind. And then we see them alone in a dark night, tossed about by a great wind on stormy waters, and, worst of all, Christ not with them. It was a strange transition. From witnessing a mighty miracle, and helping it instrumentally, amidst an admiring crowd, to solitude, darkness, winds, waves, storm, anxiety, and danger, the change was very great! But Christ knew it, and Christ appointed it, and it was working for their good. Trial, we must distinctly understand, is part of the diet which all true Christians must expect. It is one of the means by which their grace is proved, and by which they find out what there is in themselves. Winter as well as summer,— cold as well as heat,— clouds as well as sunshine,— are all necessary to bring the fruit of the Spirit to ripeness and maturity. We do not naturally like this. We would rather cross the lake with calm weather and favorable winds, with Christ always by our side, and the sun shining down on our faces. But it may not be. It is not in this way that God's children are made "partakers of His holiness." (Hebrews 12:10.) Abraham, and Jacob, and Moses, and David, and Job were all men of many trials. Let us be content to walk in their footsteps, and to drink of their cup. In our darkest hours we may seem to be left,— but we are never really alone. Let us notice, in the last place, our Lord Jesus Christ's power over the waves of the sea. He came to His disciples as they were rowing on the stormy lake, "walking on" the waters. He walked on them as easily as we walk on dry land. They bore Him as firmly as the pavement of the Temple, or the hills around Nazareth. That which is contrary to all natural reason was perfectly possible to Christ. The Lord Jesus, we must remember, is not only the Lord, but the Maker of all creation. "All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:3.) It was just as easy for Him to walk on the sea as to form the sea at the beginning,— just as easy to suspend the common laws of nature, as they are called, as to impose those laws at the first. Learned men talk solemn nonsense sometimes about the eternal fixity of the "laws of nature," as if they were above God Himself, and could never be suspended. It is well to be reminded sometimes by such miracles as that before us, that these so-called "laws of nature" are neither immutable nor eternal. They had a beginning, and will one day have an end. Let all true Christians take comfort in the thought that their Savior is Lord of waves and winds, of storms and tempests, and can come to them in the darkest hour, "walking upon the sea." There are waves of trouble far heavier than any on the Lake of Galilee. There are days of darkness which try the faith of the holiest Christian. But let us never despair if Christ is our Friend. He can come to our aid in an hour when we think not, and in ways that we did not expect. And when He comes, all will be calm. ================== Notes— v15.—[When Jesus therefore perceived.] This would be more literally rendered, "Jesus knowing, or having known." It seems to imply Divine knowledge of the multitude's secret intentions. Jesus knew men's hearts and thoughts. [That they would come.] This would be more literally, "that they are about to come." [Take Him by force to make him a king.] The intention or wish was probably to place Him at their head, and proclaim Him their king, with or without His consent, and then to hurry Him away to Jerusalem, so as to arrive there at the passover feast, and announce Him as a Deliverer to the crowd assembled at that time.— The idea evidently in their mind was, that one who could work such a mighty miracle must be a mighty temporal Redeemer, raised up, like the Judges of old, to break the bonds of the Romish government, and restore the old independence and kingdom to Israel. There is no reason to suppose that there was any more spiritual feeling in the minds of the multitude. Of sense of spiritual need, and of faith in our Lord as a Saviour from sin, there is no trace. Popularity and the good opinion of excited crowds are both worthless and temporary things. Rollock remarks that the Jews were very sensitive about the tyranny and dominion of the Romans, while they did not feel the far greater tyranny and dominion of sin. He points out that we who are expecting the second advent of Christ in the present day should take care that we increasingly feel the burden and yoke of sin, from which Christ's second advent will deliver the creation. Otherwise Christ's second advent will do us no more good than his first advent did to the Jews. [He departed again into a mountain....alone.] This would be more literally rendered, "the mountain," as at John 6:3. Matthew and Mark both mention another reason why our Lord withdrew to the mountain, beside His desire to avoid the intention of the multitude. They tell us that He "sent the multitude away and departed to pray." (Matthew 14:23; Mark 6:46.) Some think that a miracle must have been wrought when our Lord withdrew Himself from the multitude, and that He must have passed through them invisibly, as after the miracle at Bethesda, and at Nazareth. Yet it seems hardly necessary to suppose this. It is worth noticing that after Luke's account of this miracle, he immediately relates that our Lord asked the disciples, "Whom say the people that I am?" (Luke 9:18.) It does not however follow that He asked immediately, but after an interval of some days. But the wish of the multitude here related may have occasioned the question. v16.—[When even....disciples went down unto the sea.] Matthew and Mark both say that our Lord "constrained" them to embark in the ship and depart. He "obliged" or "compelled" them. He probably saw that in their ignorance of the spiritual nature of His kingdom they were ready to fall in with the wishes of the multitude, and to proclaim Him a king. v17.—[Entered into a ship.] This would be more literally "the ship." It seems to mean that particular vessel or fishing-boat which our Lord and His disciples always used on the lake of Galilee, and which probably was lent for His use by the relatives of those of His disciples who were fishermen, if not by the four themselves,— viz., James, John, Andrew, and Peter. There is no necessity for supposing that when they left their calling to become disciples they gave up their boats so entirely as to have no more use of them when they wished. The last chapter of this very Gospel seems to prove the contrary. When Peter said, "I go a fishing," there was "the boat" ready for them at once. (John 21:3.) [Went over the sea....Capernaum.] This would be more literally "were going," "were in the act of going." Capernaum lay on the north-west shore of the lake of Galilee, and the point where the disciples embarked was on the north-east shore. To reach Capernaum they would pass the point where the Jordan ran into the lake, and leave that point and the town of Bethsaida on their right hand. The place where the miracle was wrought was not at Bethsaida itself, we must remember, but in the desert country and district lying to the east of Bethsaida. Luke specially mentions this (Luke 9:10), and unless we keep it in mind we shall not understand Mark's words, that our Lord made His disciples "go to the other side before unto Bethsaida." To go to Capernaum they must need go "in the direction of" Bethsaida, though they would leave it on the right as they passed. Thomson, in the "Land And The Book," maintains this view, and Rollock, 250 years ago, held the same opinion. I repeat the opinion that I see no necessity for the theory of Alford and other commentators that there were two Bethsaidas. Capernaum was the city where our Lord passed more time, and probably worked more miracles, than He did in any other place during His ministry. This is probably the reason why our Lord speaks of it as "exalted unto heaven." (Matthew 11:23.) No city had such privileges and saw so much of the Son of God while He was manifest in the flesh. [It was now dark, and Jesus was not come.] The Greek word for "dark" is always rendered "darkness" in other places, except John 20:1. The simple circumstance of the disciples being alone in the boat, on the sea, and in darkness, has been felt in every age to be an instructive emblem of the position of the Church of Christ between the first and second advents. Like them, the Church is on a sea of trouble, and separate from its Head. In estimating, however, the position and feelings of the disciples, we must not forget that four of them at least were fishermen, and familiar from their youth with the management of boats, and all the dangers of the lake. We must not therefore think of them as inexperienced landsmen, or as little children unable to take care of themselves. We learn to know the value of Christ's company, when we have it, by the discomfort we experience when we have it not. v18.—[And the sea arose....great wind that blew.] The Greek word rendered "arose" would be more literally rendered "was being raised or stirred." At first sight it may seem surprising that the waters of an inland lake, like the sea of Galilee, could be so much agitated. But it is remarkable that the testimony of travellers in modern times is distinct, that this lake is peculiarly liable to be visited by violent squalls of wind, and to become very rough while they last. Thomson, the American traveller, says,— "My experience in this region enabled me to sympathize with the disciples in their long night's contest with the wind.— I have seen the face of the lake like a huge boiling caldron. The wind howled down the valleys from the north-east and east with such fury that no efforts of rowers could have brought a boat to shore at any point along that coast.— To understand the causes of these sudden and violent tempests we must remember the lake lies low,— six hundred feet lower than the ocean,— that water-courses have cut out profound ravines and wild gorges, converging to the head of the lake, and that these act like gigantic funnels to draw down the cold winds from the mountains. On the occasion referred to we pitched our tents on the shore, and remained for three days and nights exposed to this tremendous wind. We had to double-pin all the tent-ropes, and frequently were obliged to hang with our whole weight upon them, to keep the quivering tabernacle from being carried up bodily into the air. No wonder the disciples toiled and rowed hard all that night." In another place he says,— "Small as the lake is, and placid in general as a molten mirror, I have repeatedly seen it quiver, and leap, and boil like a caldron, when driven by fierce winds."— 'S "LAND AND THE BOOK." Burkitt remarks that the position of the disciples, immediately tempest-tossed after witnessing and partaking in a mighty miracle, is an instructive type of the common experience of believers. After seasons of peculiar privileges there often come sharp trials of faith and patience. This sudden trial of faith by danger was no doubt intended to be a lesson to the disciples as to what they must expect in the exercise of their ministry. Affliction and crosses are the grindstones on which God is constantly sharpening those instruments which He uses most." v19.—[So when...rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs.] We might gather from the disciples "rowing," and not sailing, that the wind was against them, and we are expressly told, both by Matthew and Mark, that "the wind was contrary." From the distance they had rowed, and the known width of the lake, at that particular part of it, they were probably now about the middle of their passage. Matthew says,— they were "in the midst of the sea." (Matthew 14:24.) This would make them at least two or three miles from shore, a fact which should be carefully noted with reference to what follows. Let the expression "twenty-five or thirty" be noted. It is not necessary to define to a hair's breadth distances and quantities in narrating an event. Even an inspired writer does not. He uses the common language of men, and such language as those present on the occasion would have used. In a dark night they could not possibly have spoken with precise accuracy. John was there himself, and knew that excessive accuracy is sometimes suspicious, and looks like a made-up story. John 2:6 is a similar expression. Bengel says, "The Holy Spirit knew, and could have told John precisely how many furlongs there were. But in Scripture he imitates popular modes of expression." [They see Jesus walking on the sea, etc., etc.] This was undoubtedly as great a miracle as any that our Lord wrought. "Moses," says Theophylact, "as a servant, by the power of God divided the sea. But Christ, the Lord of all, by His own power walked on the sea." For a solid body to walk on the face of the water as on dry land, is an entire suspension of what are called the laws of nature. It was, of course, as easy for Him by whom the waters were first created to walk upon them as to create them. But the whole proceeding was so entirely supernatural, that we can thoroughly understand the disciples being "afraid." Nothing is found to alarm human nature so much as being suddenly brought into contact with anything apparently supernatural and belonging to another world, and especially in the night. The feelings called forth on such occasions, even in ungodly and irreligious men, are one of the strongest indirect proofs, that all men's consciences recognize an unseen world. That a mighty miracle really was wrought upon this occasion is the only reasonable account that can be given of the fact that we are told. Mark adds to John's account, that when Jesus came near the ship, "He would have passed by them." (Mark 6:48.) Matthew adds another fact of even greater importance. He tells us that Peter said, "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water to go to Jesus." (Matthew 14:28-29.) Such a fact as this cannot possibly be explained away. Not only did our Lord walk on the water Himself, but He also gave one of His twelve apostles power to do the same. To say in the face of such facts as these, that there was in reality no miracle,— that the disciples were mistaken,— that our Lord was only walking on the shore near the vessel,— that the superstitious fear of the disciples made them fancy that He was walking on the sea,— that they finally put to shore, and took Him on board,— to say such things as these pleases some persons who profess not to believe any miracles at all! But such views cannot possibly be reconciled with the account of what really happened, given by two witnesses, Matthew and John, who were actually present on the occasion, and by another writer,—viz., Mark, who was intimate with that very Peter who walked on the water himself. If the disciples were "in the midst of the sea," and two or three miles from shore, how could they possibly have seen our Lord walking on the shore? If it was "dark" when these things happened, it stands to reason that they could not distinguish anyone on shore, even supposing that they were not two miles off. If there was a heavy gale blowing, and the waves were rough, it is absurd to suppose that they could hold a conversation with anyone walking on shore. The plain truth is that it requires far more faith to accept such improbable and preposterous explanations as these, than to take the whole account simply as we find it, and to believe that a real mighty miracle was wrought.— Unless men are prepared to say that Matthew, Mark, and John, wrote accounts of the events of this night, which are incorrect, and not trustworthy, it is impossible for any honest and unprejudiced person to avoid the conclusion, that a miracle took place.— Of course, if Matthew, Mark, and John give incorrect accounts, and are not to be trusted here, they are not to be trusted anywhere, and all their records of our Lord's doings and sayings become utterly worthless. This unhappily is the very result to which many would be glad to lead us. From denying all miracles to downright infidelity is nothing but a regular succession of steps. If a man begins with throwing overboard the miracles, he cannot stop logically till he has given up the Bible and Christianity. v20.—[But he saith, It is I; be not afraid.] Our Lord's tenderness for His disciples' feelings appears beautifully here. No sooner does He see fear than He proceeds to calm it. He assures them that the figure they see walking on the deep is no spirit or ghost,—no enemy or object of dread. It is their own beloved Master. His voice, well-known as it must have been, would, of course, help to calm their fears. Yet even that was not enough till Peter had said, "If it be thou, bid me come to thee." The practical remark has often been made, that many of the things which now frighten Christians and fill them with anxiety, would cease to frighten them if they would endeavour to see the Lord Jesus in all, ordering every providence, and overruling everything, so that not a hair falls to the ground without Him. They are happy who can hear His voice through the thickest clouds and darkness, and above the loudest winds and storms, saying, "It is I; be not afraid." It has been thought by some that the words, "It is I," might be more literally rendered, "I am," and that they are intended to refer to the name of God, so familiar to Jews, "I am." But I doubt the correctness of the idea. It is a pious thought, but hardly in keeping with the context and the circumstances of the occurrence. Our Lord desired first to relieve the fears of His disciples by showing them who it was that they feared; and the Greek words for "It is I," are the only words that He could well have used. It may be noted here that there seems to be no feeling or passion to which Christians are so liable as "fear." There is none, certainly, against which, our Lord so often exhorts His disciples. "Fear not:— be not afraid:— let not your heart be troubled:" are very common sayings of His. v21.—[Then they willingly received...ship.] This would be rendered more literally: "Then they were willing," "they were glad, and wished."— It evidently implies, that at first the disciples were afraid of our Lord. But as soon as they recognized Him, their fears departed; and so far from wishing to be rid of the figure they had seen walking on the sea, their great desire now was to receive Him on board. [Immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.] This sentence either means that shortly after our Lord joined the disciples in the boat they reached their destination, or that immediately, by miraculous agency, they arrived at the shore. There is, perhaps, no occasion to suppose any other miracle. Both Matthew and Mark distinctly say that "the wind ceased," as soon as our Lord entered the boat. The storm, according to the custom of storms on the lake, suddenly ceased, and the disciples consequently had no trouble in rowing to the shore. The wind was no longer against them; and the sea, in so small a compass as the Lake of Galilee, would naturally soon go down. The old practical lesson still remains to be remembered. Christ's Church is now a tossed ship, in the midst of a stormy sea. The great Master has gone up into heaven to intercede for His people, left alone for awhile, and to return. When Jesus returns again to His tossed and afflicted Church, at the second advent, their troubles will soon be over. They will soon be in harbour. His voice, which will fill the wicked with terror, will fill His people with joy. The place where they landed was evidently Capernaum, or close to it. The discourse which follows was at any rate finished (wherever it may have begun) in "the synagogue at Capernaum," and follows in unbroken succession after the events we have now been considering. The statement of Matthew and Mark, that our Lord and His disciples reached the shore in "the land of Genesaret," is quite reconcilable with John's account. The "land of Genesaret" was a plain, on the north-west coast of the Lake of Galilee, extending from Magdala at the south, to Capernaum at the north. In leaving this passage, I call the reader's attention to the very marked and peculiar position which the two miracles recorded by John in this chapter occupy. They immediately precede that wonderful discourse in the synagogue of Capernaum, in which our Lord proclaims Himself to be "the living bread which came down from heaven and giveth life to the world," and declares that "except we eat His flesh and drink His blood we have no life in us."— I believe that the two miracles were intended to prepare the minds of the disciples to receive the mighty truths which the discourse contained. Did they stumble at the announcement that He was the "bread of God," and "gave life to the world"? It would surely help their weak faith to remember that the very day before they had seen Him suddenly supply the wants of a mighty multitude with five loaves and two fishes.— Did they stumble at the doctrine, that "His flesh was meat indeed and his blood drink indeed"? It would surely assist their feeble spiritual apprehension to remember that the very night before they had seen that body walking on the face of the sea. They had had ocular proof that there was a deep mystery about our Lord's human nature, and that although He was real and true man, there was at the same time something about Him far above man. These things I believe are worth noticing. The connection between our Lord's miracles and His teaching is often far closer than at first sight appears. WE should mark first, in this passage, what knowledge of man's heart our Lord Jesus Christ possesses. We see Him exposing the false motives of those who followed Him for the sake of the loaves and fishes. They had followed Him across the Lake of Galilee. They seemed at first sight ready to believe in Him, and do Him honor. But He knew the inward springs of their conduct, and was not deceived. "Ye seek me," He said, "not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled." The Lord Jesus, we should never forget, is still the same. He never changes. He reads the secret motives of all who profess and call themselves Christians. He knows exactly why they do all they do in their religion. The reasons why they go to Church, and why they receive the sacrament,— why they attend family prayers, and why they keep Sunday holy,— all are naked and opened to the eyes of the great Head of the Church. By Him actions are weighed as well as seen. "Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh at the heart." (1 Samuel 16:7.) Let us be real, true, and sincere in our religion, whatever else we are. The sinfulness of hypocrisy is very great, but its folly is greater still. It is not hard to deceive ministers, relatives, and friends. A little decent outward profession will often go a long way. But it is impossible to deceive Christ. "His eyes are as a flame of fire." (Revelation 1:14.) He sees us through and through. Happy are those who can say,— "Thou, Lord, who knowest all things, knowest that we love thee." (John 21:17.) We should mark, secondly, in this passage, what Christ forbids. He told the crowds who followed Him so diligently for the loaves and fishes, "not to labor for the meat that perisheth." It was a remarkable saying, and demands explanation. Our Lord, we may be sure, did not mean to encourage idleness. It would be a great mistake to suppose this Labor was the appointed lot of Adam in Paradise. Labor was ordained to be man's occupation after the fall. Labor is honorable in all men. No one need be ashamed of belonging to "the working classes." Our Lord himself worked in the carpenter's shop at Nazareth. Paul wrought as a tent-maker with his own hands. What our Lord did mean to rebuke was, that excessive attention to labor for the body, while the soul is neglected, which prevails everywhere in the world. What He reproved was, the common habit of laboring only for the things of time, and letting alone the things of eternity— of minding only the life that now is, and disregarding the life to come. Against this habit He delivers a solemn warning. Surely, we must all feel our Lord did not say the words before us without good cause. They are a startling caution which should ring in the ears of many in these latter days. How many in every rank of life are doing the very thing against which Jesus warns us! They are laboring night and day for "the meat that perisheth," and doing nothing for their immortal souls. Happy are those who learn betimes the respective value of soul and body, and give the first and best place in their thoughts to salvation. One thing is needful. He that seeks first the kingdom of God, will never fail to find "all other things added to him." (Matthew 6:33.) We should mark, thirdly, in this passage, what Christ advises. He tells us to "labor for the meat that endureth to everlasting life." He would have us take pains to find food and satisfaction for our souls. That food is provided in rich abundance in Him. But he that would have it must diligently seek it. How are we to labor? There is but one answer. We must labor in the use of all appointed means. We must read our Bibles, like men digging for hidden treasure. We must wrestle earnestly in prayer, like men contending with a deadly enemy for life. We must take our whole heart to the house of God, and worship and hear like those who listen to the reading of a will. We must fight daily against sin, the world, and the devil, like those who fight for liberty, and must conquer, or be slaves. These are the ways we must walk in if we would find Christ, and be found of Him. This is "laboring." This is the secret of getting on about our souls. Labor like this no doubt is very uncommon. In carrying it on we shall have little encouragement from man, and shall often be told that we are "extreme," and go too far. Strange and absurd as it is, the natural man is always fancying that we may take too much thought about religion, and refusing to see that we are far more likely to take too much thought about the world. But whatever man may say, the soul will never get spiritual food without labor. We must "strive," we must "run," we must "fight," we must throw our whole heart into our soul's affairs. It is "the violent" who take the kingdom. (Matthew 11:12.) We should mark, lastly, in this passage, what a promise Christ holds out. He tells us that He himself will give eternal food to all who seek it: "The Son of man shall give you the meat that endureth unto everlasting life." How gracious and encouraging these words are! Whatever we need for the relief of our hungering souls, Christ is ready and willing to bestow. Whatever mercy, grace, peace, strength we require, the Son of man will give freely, immediately, abundantly, and eternally. He is "sealed," and appointed, and commissioned by God the Father for this very purpose. Like Joseph in the Egyptian famine, it is His office to be the Friend, and Almoner, and Reliever of a sinful world. He is far more willing to give than man is to receive. The more sinners apply to Him, the better He is pleased. And now, as we leave this rich passage, let us ask ourselves, what use we make of it? For what are we laboring ourselves? What do we know of lasting food and satisfaction for our inward man? Never let us rest till we have eaten of the meat which Christ alone can give. They that are content with any other spiritual food will sooner or later "lie down in sorrow." (Isaiah 50:11.) ================== Notes— v22.—[The day following, etc.] In this, and the three following verses, we have an instance of the extreme minuteness with which John describes all the particulars connected with any of the miracles of our Lord which he records.— Here, for example, he tells us that our Lord's remaining behind, and not accompanying His disciples when they went into the boat, was observed by the multitude; and that nevertheless they could not find our Lord the next morning, and were puzzled to account for His being found at Capernaum when they got there.— All these little things help to prove that the circumstances of our Lord's joining the disciples was something miraculous, and cannot be explained away, as some rationalists pretend to say. In particular, the question, "When camest thou hither?" (John 6:25) is plain evidence that the multitude did not think it possible for our Lord to have walked along the shore, as some modern writers suggest, and did not understand how He got to Capernaum except in a boat. In each of the seven great miracles recorded by John, this fulness and minuteness is very noticeable. Had he been inspired to relate as many miracles as we find in Matthew and Mark, his Gospel would have been fifty chapters, instead of twenty-one. Writing long after the other Gospel writers, and at a time when many who witnessed our Lord's miracles were dead, there was a fitness and wisdom in his supplying the abundant particulars which characterize his descriptions. [The people which stood on the other side of the sea.] This means the multitude, or some of them, whom Jesus had fed on the north-east shore of the lake, and whom the disciples had left standing near the banks when they embarked, before our Lord sent them away. Matthew and Mark both mention that our Lord first made the disciples embark, and then sent the multitude away, and retired to the mountain to pray. v23.—[Howbeit there came other boats, etc.] This verse either means that other boats came from Tiberias the morning after the miracle of feeding the multitude, which were not there the evening that the disciples embarked; or else it means that there were other boats from Tiberias not far from the place where the miracle was worked, though there were none actually at the spot where the disciples embarked, except their one boat. The verse is carefully inserted parenthetically, in order to account for the multitude following our Lord to Capernaum. Had it not been inserted, the infidel would have asked us triumphantly, to explain how the people could have followed our Lord, when they had no boats! We need not doubt that every apparent discrepancy and difficulty in the Gospel narrative would equally admit of explanation, if we only knew how to fill up the gaps. [After that the Lord had given thanks.] This is purposely inserted to remind us that it was no common eating of bread that had taken place, but an eating of food miraculously multiplied after our Lord had blessed it. v24.—[When the people.] There is no occasion to suppose that this expression means the whole five thousand, whom our Lord had fed. For one thing, we are distinctly told that our Lord "sent them away," and the greater part probably dispersed, and went their way to their homes, or to Jerusalem to the passover. For another thing, it is absurd to suppose that so large a multitude could find boats enough to convey them across the lake. It evidently means the remaining portion of the multitude, and probably included many who followed our Lord about from place to place wherever He went in Galilee, without any spiritual feeling, from a vague love of excitement, and in the hope of ultimately getting something by it. [They also took shipping.] This means that they embarked in the boats which came from Tiberias, and crossed over the lake. v25.—[And when they found Him on the other side of the sea.] The place where they found our Lord was on the north-west side of the lake of Galilee, on the opposite side from that where the miracle of feeding the multitude was wrought. The precise spot however where they found Him is a point which it is not very easy to decide.— Of course if we read the discourse which follows as one unbroken discourse, all spoken at one time without breaks or pauses, except such as arise from the remarks of the people who heard our Lord, there can be no doubt where our Lord was, John 6:59 settles the question. ''These things said he in the synagogue as he taught in Capernaum.''— But if we suppose a break at the fortieth verse, where the Jews begin "to murmur," and a short interval before the discourse was resumed, it seems highly probable that the crowd found our Lord at the landing-place at Capernaum, or just outside the city,— that the discourse began there and continued up to John 6:40,— and that then after a short pause it was resumed "in the synagogue of Capernaum." It certainly does seem rather abrupt and unnatural to suppose the crowd landing at Capernaum, going up to the synagogue, and there beginning the conversation with the question, "When camest thou hither?" [When camest thou hither?] The question evidently implies surprise at finding our Lord, and inability to understand how He could possibly have got to Capernaum, if He did not go in the boat with His disciples. It is a question, be it remarked, to which our Lord returned no answer. He knew the state of mind of those who asked it, and knew that it would be of no use to tell them when He had come, or how. Wordsworth's idea that there is a mystical reference in this question to the manner and time of Christ's presence in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, appears to me very fanciful and far-fetched. v26.—[Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say.] This solemn expression, as usual in John's Gospel, introduces a series of sayings of the deepest importance. The very first was a sharp and cutting rebuke of the carnal-mindedness of those whom our Lord addressed. [Ye seek me...not...miracles...eat...filled.] This was a severe saying, and one which He, who knew all hearts and read all secret motives, could say with peculiar power. It is a sad exposure of the true reason why many followed our Lord, both on this occasion and on others. It was not now even desire to see miracles performed, as it had been the day before (see John 6:2). These, after a time, when the novelty was passed, would cease to astonish and attract. It was a lower and more carnal motive still. It was the mere wish to be fed again with loaves and fishes. They wanted to get something more out of our Lord. They had been fed once, and they would like to be fed again. The poor, and mean, and carnal motives which induce men to make some religious profession, are painfully exhibited here. Perhaps we have but a faint notion how little the reasons of many for coming to public worship or communion would bear sifting and examination. We may be sure that all is not gold that glitters, and that many a professor is rotten at heart. It was so even under our Lord's ministry, and much more now. Augustine remarks how seldom "Jesus is sought for the sake of Jesus." Our Lord's perfect knowledge of the secret springs of men's actions is strikingly exhibited here. We cannot deceive Him even if we deceive man; and our true characters will be exposed in the day of judgment, if they are not found out before we die. Whatever we are in religion, let us be honest and true. To follow Christ for the sake of a few loaves and fishes seems miserable work. To some who know nothing of poverty, it may appear almost incredible that a crowd of people should have done it. Perhaps those only can thoroughly understand it who have seen much of the poor in pauperized rural parishes. They can understand the immense importance which a poor man attaches to having his belly filled, and getting a dinner or a supper. Most of our Lord's followers in Galilee were probably very poor. To deal plainly with people about their spiritual condition and faithfully expose their false motives, if we know them, is the positive duty of ministers and teachers. It is no kindness or charity to flatter professing Christians, and tell them they are children of God, and going to heaven, if we know that they only make a religious profession for the sake of what they can get. Wisdom and discrimination in giving temporal relief to the poor are very necessary things in ministers, and indeed in all Christians. Unless we take heed what we do in such matters, we do more harm than good. To be always feeding the poor and giving money to those who make some profession of religion, is the surest way to train up a generation of hypocrites, and to inflict lasting injury on souls. v27.—[Labour not, etc...sealed.] This verse is peculiarly full of instructive lessons. (1.) There is something forbidden. We are not to labour exclusively, or excessively, for the satisfaction of our bodily wants, for that food which only perishes in the using, and only does us a little temporary good. (2.) There is something commanded. We ought to work hard and strive for that spiritual food,— that supply for the wants of our souls, which once obtained is an everlasting possession. (3.) There is something promised. The Son of man, even Jesus Christ, is ready to give to every one who desires to have it, that spiritual food which endures for ever. (4.) There is something declared. The Son of man, Jesus Christ, has been designated and appointed by God the Father for this very purpose, to be the dispenser of this spiritual food to all who desire it. The whole verse is a strong proof that however carnal and wicked men may be, we should never hesitate to offer to them freely and fully the salvation of the Gospel. Bad as the motives of these Jews were, we see our Lord, in the same breath, first exposing their sin, and then showing them their remedy. The figure of speech used by our Lord, which supplies the key-note to the whole subsequent discourse, is a beautiful instance of that divine wisdom with which He suited His language to the mental condition of those He spoke to. He saw the crowd coming to Him for food. He seizes the idea, and bids them labour not for bodily but spiritual food. Just so when He saw the rich young man come to Him, He bade him "sell all and give to the poor."— Just so when the Samaritan woman met Him at the well, as she came to draw water, He told her of living water.— Just so when Nicodemus came to Him, proud of his Jewish birth, He tells him of a new birth which he needed. When our Lord said, "labour not for the meat that perisheth," we must not for a moment suppose that He meant to encourage idleness, and the neglect of all lawful means in order to get our living. It is a kind of expression which is not uncommon in the Bible, when two things are put in comparison. Thus, when our Lord says "If any man come after me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children, etc., he cannot be my disciple," we see at a glance that these words cannot be taken literally. They only mean "if any man does not love me more than father," etc. (Luke 14:26.) So here the simple meaning is that we ought to take far more pains about the supply of the wants of our souls than of our bodies. See also 1 Corinthians 7:29; 2 Corinthians 4:18; 1 Samuel 8:7; John 12:44. When our Lord says, "labour for the meat that endureth," etc., I think He teaches very plainly that it is the duty of every one to use every means, and endeavour in every way to promote the welfare of his soul. In the use of prayer, the Bible, and the public preaching of God's Word we are specially to labour. Our responsibility and accountableness, the duty of effort and exertion, appear to me to stand out unmistakably in the expression. It is like the commands "Strive, Repent, Believe, Be converted, Save yourselves from this untoward generation, Awake, Arise, Come, Pray." It is nothing less than wicked to stand still, splitting hairs, raising difficulties, and pretending inability, in the face of such expressions as these. What God commands man must always try to obey. Whatever language Christ uses, ministers and teachers must never shrink from using likewise. The "meat that endureth to everlasting life," must doubtless mean that satisfaction of the cravings of soul and conscience, which is the grand want of human nature. Mercy and grace, pardon of sin and a new heart, are the two great gifts which alone can fill the soul, and once given are never taken away, but endure for ever. Both here and in many other places, we must always remember, that "meat" did not mean exclusively "flesh" in the days when the Bible was translated, as it does now. The Greek word rendered "meat" here means simply "food" of any kind. When our Lord says, "The Son of man shall give you the meat that endureth to everlasting life," He appears to me to make one of the widest and most general offers to unconverted sinners that we have anywhere in the Bible. The men to whom He was speaking were, beyond question, carnal-minded and unconverted men. Yet even to them Jesus says, "The Son of man shall give you." To me it seems an unmistakable statement of Christ's willingness and readiness to give pardon and grace to any sinner. It seems to me to warrant ministers in proclaiming Christ's readiness to save any one, and in offering salvation to any one, if he will only repent and believe the Gospel. The favourite notion of some, that Christ is to be offered only to the elect,— that grace and pardon are to be exhibited but not offered to a congregation,— that we ought not to say broadly and fully to all whom we preach to, Christ is ready and willing to save you,— such notions, I say, appear to me entirely irreconcilable with the language of our Lord. Election, no doubt, is a mighty truth and a precious privilege. Complete and full redemption no doubt is the possession of none but the elect. But how easy it is, in holding these glorious truths, to become more systematic than the Bible, and to spoil the Gospel by cramping and limiting it! When our Lord says, "Him hath God the Father sealed," He probably refers to the custom of setting apart for any specific purpose, and marking for any peculiar use by a seal. So also deeds and public documents were sealed to testify their execution and validity, and give them authority. So it is said in Esther: "The writing that is written in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may no man reverse." (Esther 8:8.) The expression applied to our Lord in this place certainly stands alone, but I think there can be little doubt as to its meaning. It signifies that in the eternal counsels of God the Father, He has sealed, commissioned, designated, and appointed the Son of Man, the Incarnate Word, to be the Giver of everlasting life to man. It is an office for which He has been solemnly set apart by the Father. Parkhurst thinks that the word means "Him hath God the Father authorized with sufficient evidence, particularly by the voice from heaven;" and he refers the sealing entirely to the testimony which the Father had borne to the Son's Messiahship. This also is Suicer's view, and Alford's. Stier remarks, "This sealing is not to be understood merely of miracles, but of the stamp of divinity which was impressed upon His whole life and teaching." This is Poole's view, and Hutcheson's. It has been thought by some that there is a tacit reference here to the history of Joseph; and that our Lord meant that as Joseph was appointed to be the great almoner and reliever of the Egyptians by the king of Egypt, so He is appointed by the King of kings to relieve the spiritual famine of mankind. At any rate it is an apt and suitable illustration. The idea of Hilary and some others that the expression "sealed" refers to our Lord being the "express image of the Father's presence," appears to me far-fetched and without foundation. The last words of the verse should be rendered more literally, "Him hath the Father sealed, even God." It almost suggests the idea that our Lord desired to prevent His hearers supposing that He referred to Joseph as His Father. It is as if He said, "the Father I mean, remember, is not an earthly father, but God." Rollock remarks on this verse, that our Lord does not confine Himself to showing the folly of only seeking "the meat that perisheth," but is careful to show the true food of the soul, and to point out who alone can give it. He observes that this is an example to us in teaching man the Gospel. The remedy must be as plainly taught and lifted up as the disease. He observes truly that none can speak better of the vanity of earthly things and the glory of heaven, than many Papists do. But it is when they come to the feeding of man's soul that they fail. They try to feed him with man's merits, the intercession of saints, purgatory, and the like, and do not show him Christ. It is note-worthy that it was the remembrance of this verse which made Henry Martyn persevere in preaching to poor Hindoos at Dinapore in India. He had found they only came for temporal relief, and cared nothing for his preaching, and he was on the point of giving up in despair. But this verse came across his mind. "If the Lord Jesus was not ashamed to preach to mere bread-seekers," he thought, "who am I, that I should give over in disgust?" THESE verses form the beginning of one of the most remarkable passages in the Gospels. None, perhaps, of our Lord's discourses has occasioned more controversy, and been more misunderstood, than that which we find in the Sixth Chapter of John. We should observe, for one thing, in these verses, the spiritual ignorance and unbelief of the natural man. Twice over we see this brought out and exemplified. When our Lord bade his hearers "labor for the meat which endureth to eternal life," they immediately began to think of works to be done, and a goodness of their own to be established. "What shall we do that we might work the works of God?" Doing, doing, doing, was their only idea of the way to heaven.— Again, when our Lord spoke of Himself as One sent of God, and the need of believing on Him at once, they turn round with the question,— "What sign showest thou? what dost thou work?" Fresh from the mighty miracle of the loaves and fishes, one might have thought they had had a sign sufficient to convince them. Taught by our Lord Jesus Christ himself, one might have expected a greater readiness to believe. But alas! there are no limits to man's dulness, prejudice, and unbelief in spiritual matters. It is a striking fact that the only thing which our Lord is said to have "marveled" at during His earthly ministry, was man's "unbelief." (Mark 6:6.) We shall do well to remember this, if we ever try to do good to others in the matter of religion. We must not be cast down because our words are not believed, and our efforts seem thrown away. We must not complain of it as a strange thing, and suppose that the people we have to deal with are peculiarly stubborn and hard. We must recollect that this is the very cup of which our Lord had to drink, and like Him we must patiently work on. If even He, so perfect and so plain a Teacher, was not believed, what right have we to wonder if men do not believe us? Happy are the ministers, and missionaries, and teachers who keep these things in mind! It will save them much bitter disappointment. In working for God, it is of first importance to understand what we must expect in man. Few things are so little realized as the extent of human unbelief. We should observe, for another thing, in these verses, the high honor Christ puts on faith in Himself. The Jews had asked Him,— "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" In reply He says,— "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." A truly striking and remarkable expression! If any two things are put in strong contrast, in the New Testament, they are faith and works. Not working, but believing,— not of works, but through faith,— are words familiar to all careful Bible-readers. Yet here the great Head of the Church declares that believing on Him is the highest and greatest of all "works"! It is "the work of God." Doubtless our Lord did not mean that there is anything meritorious in believing. Man's faith, at the very best, is feeble and defective. Regarded as a "work," it cannot stand the severity of God's judgment, deserve pardon, or purchase heaven. But our Lord did mean that faith in Himself, as the only Savior, is the first act of the soul which God requires at a sinner's hands. Till a man believes on Jesus, and rests on Jesus as a lost sinner, he is nothing.— Our Lord did mean that faith in Himself is that act of the soul which specially pleases God. When the Father sees a sinner casting aside his own righteousness, and simply trusting in His dear Son, He is well pleased. Without such faith it is impossible to please God.— Our Lord did mean that faith in Himself is the root of all saving religion. There is no life in a man till he believes.— Above all, our Lord did mean that faith in Himself is the hardest of all spiritual acts to the natural man. Did the Jews want something to do in religion? Let them know that the greatest thing they had to do was, to cast aside their pride, confess their guilt and need, and humbly believe. Let all who know anything of true faith thank God and rejoice. Blessed are they that believe! It is an attainment which many of the wise of this world have never yet reached. We may feel ourselves poor, weak sinners. But do we believe?— We may fail and come short in many things. But do we believe?— He that has learned to feel his sins, and to trust Christ as a Savior, has learned the two hardest and greatest lessons in Christianity. He has been in the best of schools. He has been taught by the Holy Ghost. We shall observe, lastly, in these verses, the far greater privileges of Christ's hearers than of those who lived in the times of Moses. Wonderful and miraculous as the manna was which fell from heaven, it was nothing in comparison to the true bread which Christ had to bestow on His disciples. He himself was the bread of God, who had come down from heaven to give life to the world.— The bread which fell in the days of Moses could only feed and satisfy the body. The Son of man had come to feed the soul.— The bread which fell in the days of Moses was only for the benefit of Israel. The Son of man had come to offer eternal life to the world.— Those who ate the manna died and were buried, and many of them were lost for ever. But those who ate the bread which the Son of man provided, would be eternally saved. And now let us take heed to ourselves, and make sure that we are among those who eat the bread of God and live. Let us not be content with lazy waiting, but let us actually come to Christ, and eat the bread of life, and believe to the saving of our souls. The Jews could say,— "Evermore give us this bread." But it may be feared they went no further. Let us never rest till, by faith, we have eaten this bread, and can say, "Christ is mine. I have tasted that the Lord is gracious. I know and feel that I am His." ================== Notes— v28.—[Then said they unto him.] These words begin one of the most important of our Lord's discourses, and one about which the widest differences of opinion prevail. These differences it will be time enough to consider, when we come to the passage out of which they arise. In the mean time let us remember that the speakers before us were men whom our Lord had miraculously fed the day before, and on whom He had just urged the paramount importance of seeking food and satisfaction for their souls. For anything we can see they were Jews in a state of great spiritual ignorance and darkness. Yet even with them our Lord patiently condescends to hold a long conversation. Teachers who desire to walk in Christ's steps must aim at this kind of patience, and be willing to talk with and teach the darkest and most ignorant men. It needs wisdom, faith, and patience. [What shall we do...works of God?] This question is the language of men who were somewhat aroused and impressed, but still totally in the dark about the way to heaven.— They feel that they are in the wrong road, and that they ought to do something. But they are utterly ignorant what to do, and their only notion is the old self-righteous one of the natural man,— "I must do something, I must perform some works to please God and buy admission to heaven." This seems to me the leading idea of the question before us. "Your command to labour or work for the meat that endureth pricks our conscience. We admit that we ought to do something. Tell us what we must do, and we will try to do it."— It is a case of a conscience partially aroused and put on its defense, groping after light. It is like the rich young man who came running to our Lord and saying, "What good thing shall I do." (Matthew 19:16.) The expression "what shall we do?" would be more literally rendered, "what do we?" or "what must we do?" or "what are we to do?" The expression "that we might work," might have been rendered "that we might labour." It is the same Greek word that is translated in the previous verse "labour." The expression, "the works of God," cannot of course mean "the same works that God works." It means "the works that please God, that are agreeable to God's mind, and in accordance with God's will." Thus 1 Corinthians 15:58, and 1 Corinthians 16:10. This is the view of Glassius. This question, "what shall we do?" we must remember, ought never to be despised. Though it may often be the lazy expression of languid religious feeling, just half awakened, it is at any rate much better than having no feeling at all. The worst part of many persons' spiritual condition lies here, that they are quite indifferent about their salvation; they never ask "what shall we do?"— Many no doubt content themselves with saying "what shall we do?" and like those of whom we are reading, never get any further. But, on the other hand, in many cases, "what shall I do?" is the beginning of eternal life, the first step toward heaven, the first breath of grace, the first spiritual pulsation. The Jews on the day of pentecost said, "what must we do?" Saul, when the Lord met him near Damascus, said, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" The Philippian jailor said, "What must I do to be saved?" Whenever therefore we hear a person ask the question about his soul, "what shall I do?" we must try to help him and put him in the right way. We never know what it may lead to. It may perhaps end in nothing, and prove a mere temporary feeling. But it may also come to something, and end in the conversion of a soul. v29.—[Jesus answered...this....work...believe...sent.] In this verse our Lord takes hold of the expression used by the Jews about "work," and answers them according to their state of mind. Did they ask what work they should do? Let them know that the first thing God called them to do, was to believe in His Son, the Messiah whom He had sent, and whom they saw before them. When our Lord calls faith "the work of God," we must not suppose He means here, that it is the work of His Spirit, and His gift. This is undoubtedly true, but not the truth of the text. He only means that believing is "the work that pleases God," and is most agreeable to God's will and mind. Of course every well-instructed Bible-reader will remember, that, strictly speaking, believing is so far from being a "work," that it is the very opposite of working. "To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him "that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness." (Romans 4:5.) But it is evident that our Lord accommodates His manner of speaking to the ignorant minds with which He had to deal. Thus Paul calls the doctrine of faith the "law of faith." (Romans 3:27.) It is much the same as if we said to an ignorant but awakened inquirer after salvation, who fancies he can do great things for his soul,— "You talk of doing. But know that the first thing to be done, is to believe on Christ. This is the first step toward heaven. You have done nothing until you believe. This is the thing that pleases God most. Without faith it is impossible to please Him. This is the hardest thing after all. Nothing will test the reality of your feelings so much as a willingness to believe on Christ, and cease from your own works. Begin therefore by believing." The very attempt to believe, in such a case, might prove useful. Let us note in this verse the marvellous wisdom with which our Lord suited His language to the minds of those He spoke to. It should be the constant aim of a religious teacher, not merely to teach truth, but to teach truth wisely and with tact, so as to arrest the attention of those he teaches. Half the religious teaching in the churches and schools of our day, is entirely thrown away for want of tact and power of adaptation in imparting it. To profess truth is one thing: to be able to impart it wisely, quite another. Let us note in this verse the high honour our Lord puts upon faith in Himself. He makes it the root of all religion, the foundation-stone of His kingdom, the very first step toward heaven. Christians sometimes talk ignorantly about faith and works, as if they were things that could be compared with one another as equals, or opposed to one another as enemies. But let them observe here that faith in Christ is so immeasurably the first thing in Christianity, that in a certain sense it is the great work of works. In a certain sense it is the seed and root of all religion, and we can do nothing until we believe. In short, the right answer to "what must I do?" is "believe." v30.—[They said therefore unto him.] The secret unbelief of the Jews begins to come out in this verse. Nothing so thoroughly reveals the hearts of men as a summons to believe on Christ. Exhortations to work excite no prejudice and enmity. It is the exhortation to believe that offends. [What sign showest thou then.] The word "thou," in this sentence is emphatic in the Greek. It is as though the Jews said, "Who art THOU indeed to talk in this way?" "What miraculous evidence of thy Messiahship hast THOU got to show?" There is an evident sneer or sarcasm in the question. [That we may see and believe thee.] This seems to mean, "that we may see in the miracle wrought unanswerable proof that Thou art the Messiah, and seeing the miracle may thus be able to believe Thee." This is the common language of many unconverted hearts. They want to see first, and then to believe. But this is inverting God's order. Faith must come first, and sight will follow. There is a difference that ought to be marked between the "believing thee" of this verse, and the "believing on him whom he hath sent," of the preceding verse. "Believing on" is saving faith. "Believing" alone, is merely believing a person to speak the truth. The devils "believe Christ," but do not believe "on Christ." We believe John, but do not believe "on him." [What dost thou work.] It seems at first most extraordinary that men who had seen such a miracle as that of feeding the five thousand with five loaves, and had been themselves of the number fed, and this only twenty-four hours before, could ask such a question as this! Our first thought is, that no greater sign or miracle could have been shown. But they speak as if it was forgotten! Surely when we see such proofs of the extreme dullness and deadness of man's heart, we have no reason to be surprised at what we see among professing Christians. Bucer and Grotius suggest, that the speakers here can hardly be those who were witnesses of the miracle of feeding the five thousand. But I see no need for the suggestion, when we look round us and observe what human nature is capable of, or even look at the book of Exodus, and see how soon Israel in the wilderness forgot the miracles they had seen. Let us remember that this demand for "a sign," or great miracle, was common during our Lord's ministry. It seems to have been a habit of mind among the Jews. Paul says, "The Jews require a sign." (1 Corinthians 1:22.) They were always deceiving themselves with the idea, that they wanted more evidence, and pretending that if they had this evidence they would believe. Thousands in every age do just the same. They live on waiting for something to convince them, and fancying that if they were convinced, they would be different men in religion. The plain truth is, that it is want of heart, not want of evidence, that keeps people back from Christ. The Jews had signs, and evidences, and proofs of Christ's Messiahship in abundance, but they would not see them. Just so, many a professed unbeliever of our day has plenty of evidence around him, but he will neither look at it nor examine it. So true it is that "none are so blind as those that will not see." Quesnel remarks, "The atheist is still seeking after proofs of a Deity, though he walks every day amidst apparent miracles." We should observe that the Jews were willing enough to honour Christ as "a prophet." It was the doctrine of faith in Him that they could not receive. Christ the "teacher," is always more popular than Christ the "sacrifice and substitute." v31.—[Our fathers....manna....written....to eat.] The intention of the Jews in saying what they do in this verse is plain. They evidently implied a disparaging comparison between our Lord and Moses, and our Lord's miracle of feeding the multitude, and the feeding of Israel with manna. It is as though they said, "Although Thou didst work a miracle yesterday, Thou hast done nothing greater than the thing that happened in the days when our fathers were fed with manna in the wilderness. The sign Thou hast given is not so great a sign as that which Moses gave our fathers when he gave them bread from heaven to eat. Why then should we be called on to believe Thee? What proof have we that Thou art a prophet greater than Moses?" The word "manna" would have been more correctly rendered "the manna," i. e., "the well-known and famous manna." Let us note in this verse how prone men are to refer back at once to things done in the days of their "fathers," when saving religion is pressed home on their consciences. The woman of Samaria began talking about "our father Jacob."— "Art thou greater than our father Jacob?" (John 4:12.) The Pharisees "built the sepulchres of the prophets." (Luke 11:47.) Dead teachers have always more authority than living ones. Let us mark that the miraculous feeding of Israel in the wilderness with manna is spoken of by the Jews as a notorious historical fact. Our Lord moreover in the following verse entirely assumes the truth of the miracle. The modern attempts to deny or explain away the miraculous facts recorded in the Old Testament, are here, as well as elsewhere, entirely irreconcilable with the manner in which they are always spoken of in the New Testament. He that denies old Testament miracles, is assaulting the knowledge and veracity of Christ and the Apostles. They believed them, and spoke of them, as historical facts. We never need be ashamed of being on their side. Let us observe the acquaintance with Scripture which the Jews exhibit. They quote the seventy-eighth Psalm (Psalms 78:24-25), as a sufficient proof of the fact they had just mentioned. A certain knowledge of Scripture, unhappily, may often be found in a very unbelieving heart. Knowledge of the letter of Scripture at any rate seems to have been very common among the Jews. (See Deuteronomy 6:6-7.) Whether or not they applied the sentence they quoted to Moses, rather than God, I think, admits of a question. Our Lord's words, in the following verse, would rather lead one to think that they meant that "Moses gave them bread from heaven." v32.—[Then Jesus....verily....Moses gave you not that bread.] The object of our Lord in this verse is very plain. He replies to the argument of the Jews, that the miracle of the manna was a greater miracle than any He had come into the world to work, and that Moses was consequently a greater prophet than He was. Yet in the words he uses, it is not very easy to settle where the stress should be laid, and what is the precise word on which the point of the answer rests. (a.) Some think that it means,— "It was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but God." They lay the stress on Moses. (b.) Some think that it means,— "Moses did not give you bread from the real heaven of heavens, where God the Father dwells, but only a material food from the upper part of that atmosphere which surrounds this earth." They lay the stress on heaven. (c.) Some think that it means,— "Moses did not give the true spiritual bread from heaven, though he gave you bread." They lay the stress on "that bread." The second of these opinions seems to me quite inadmissible. The distinction between the heaven where God dwells and the upper region of our atmosphere was not, I believe, in our Lord's mind, when He used the language He uses here. Moreover it cannot be denied that the manna, though only material food, was heavenly food, i. e., food supplied by God's miraculous interposition. The true view seems to me to be contained in the first and third opinions taken together. The Greek bears it out by putting the word "not" in the very forefront of the sentence. "It was not Moses who gave you that bread from heaven, and even the bread that was given you was not that true bread which endures to everlasting life." [But my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.] The use of the present tense should be noticed in this sentence. The idea seems to be, "What Moses could not give you, even the true bread which feeds the soul, my Father does give you, and is actually giving you at this moment, in that He gives you myself." The expression, "giveth you," must not be supposed to imply actual reception on the part of the Jews. It rather means "giving" in the sense of "offering" for acceptance a thing which those to whom it is offered may not receive.— It is a very remarkable saying, and one of those which seems to me to prove unanswerably that Christ is God's gift to the whole world,— that His redemption was made for all mankind,— that He died for all,— and is offered to all. It is like the famous texts, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (John 3:16); and, "God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." (1 John 5:11.) It is a gift no doubt which is utterly thrown away, like many other gifts of God to man, and is profitable to none but those that believe. But that God nevertheless does in a certain sense actually "give" His Son, as the true bread from heaven, even to the wicked and unbelieving, appears to me incontrovertibly proved by the words before us. It is a remarkable fact that Erskine, the famous Scotch seceder, based his right to offer Christ to all, on these very words, and defended himself before the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland on the strength of them. He asked the Moderator to tell him what Christ meant when He said, "My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven,"— and got no answer. The truth is, I venture to think, that the text cannot be answered by the advocates of an extreme view of particular redemption. Fairly interpreted, the words mean that in some sense or another the Father does actually "give" the Son to those who are not believers. They warrant preachers and teachers in making a wide, broad, full, free, unlimited offer of Christ to all mankind without exception. Even Hutcheson, the Scotch divine, though a strong advocate of particular redemption, remarks,— "Even such as are, at present, but carnal and unsound, are not secluded from the offer of Christ; but upon right terms may expect that He will be gifted to them." The expression "true," in this place, when applied to bread, means "true" as opposed to that which is only typical, emblematical, and temporal. The manna was undoubtedly real true food for the body. But it was a type of a far better food, and was itself a thing which could not benefit the soul. Christ was the true spiritual food of which the manna was the type. Examples of "true" in this sense may be seen in John 1:9; John 15:1; Hebrews 8:2; Hebrews 9:24. v33.—[The bread of God is that, etc.] At first sight, this verse seems to mean, that "Christ coming down from heaven, and giving life unto the world, is the true bread of God,— the Divine food of man's soul." But it may well be doubted whether this is the precise meaning of the Greek words. I think with Rollock, Bengel, Scholefield, Alford, and others, they would be more correctly rendered,— "The bread of God is that bread which cometh down from heaven." (a.) For one thing, the Jews do not appear to have understood our Lord as yet to speak directly of Himself, or of any person. Else why should they have said,— "Lord, give us this bread." Moreover, they did not murmur, when they heard these words. (b.) For another thing, our Lord does not appear as yet to reveal fully that He was the bread of God. He reserves this till John 6:35, and then declares it. At present He only gives a general intimation of a certain Divine life-giving bread. (c.) For another thing, it is more in keeping with the gradual unfolding of truth,— which appears so strikingly in this chapter,— to suppose that our Lord begins with a general statement, than to suppose that He speaks at once of Himself personally. First, (1.) the bread generally,— then, (2.) I am the bread,— then, (3.) the bread is My flesh,— then, (4.) except ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood, no life, etc.,— such seem the gradual steps by which our Lord leads on His hearers in this wonderful chapter. I freely admit that the point is doubtful. Happily, whether we read, "the bread of God is He," or "the bread of God is that bread," the doctrine is sound, and Scriptural, and edifying. The expression, "the bread of God," seems equivalent to the expression of the preceding verse, "the true bread." It is that real satisfying food for the soul which God has provided. The expression, which "cometh down from heaven," is an assertion of the Divine origin of that spiritual food which God had provided. Like the manna, it came down from heaven, but in a far higher, fuller, and deeper sense, than the manna did. It was "that personal bread," of which they would soon hear more distinctly. The expression, "giveth life to the world" implies a contrast between the "bread of God," and the manna. The manna only supplied the hunger of the twelve tribes of Israel,— viz., 600,000 men and their families. The bread of God was for the whole world, and provided eternal life for every member of Adam's family who would eat of it, whether Jew or Gentile. We should mark, again, what a strong argument these words supply in favour of the doctrine of Christ being God's gift to all. That all the world has not life from Christ, and does not believe in Him, is undoubtedly true. But that life is provided in Christ, and salvation sufficient for all the world, appears to be the natural interpretation of the text. v34.—[Then said they...Lord...give us this bread.] There is a striking resemblance between the thought expressed in this verse, and the thought of the Samaritan woman, when she heard of the living water that Christ could give:— "Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw." (John 4:15.) In both cases we see desire called forth and excited by our Lord's words. There is a vague sense of something great and good being close at hand, and a vague wish expressed to have it. In the case of the Samaritan woman, the wish proved the first spark in a thorough conversion to God. In the case of the Jews before us, the wish seems to have been nothing more than the "desire of the slothful," and to have gone no further. Wishing and admiring are not conversion. Let us note, carefully, that there is nothing hitherto to show that the Jews understood our Lord to call Himself the "bread of God," or "the true bread." That there was such a thing as the true and satisfying bread,— that it must be the same as that "meat which endureth to everlasting life," they seem to have concluded;— and that it was something which our Lord could give, they inferred. But there is not a word to make us think they saw it at present to mean Christ himself. This is a weighty argument in favour of that view of the preceding verse which I have tried to support, viz.,— that it ought to be translated "the bread of God is that bread," not "He." There is some probability in Lightfoot's remark, that our Lord's hearers, like most Jews, had their minds stuffed with foolish and superstitious notions about great banquets and feasts, which they expected Messiah to give them, whenever He appeared. They had a tradition that Leviathan and Behemoth were to be slain, and their flesh made into a great feast for Israel when Messiah came. Our Lord, possibly, had this tradition in His mind, and desired to turn the minds of the Jews to the true food which Messiah had come to give. THREE of our Lord Jesus Christ's great sayings are strung together, like pearls, in this passage. Each of them ought to be precious to every true Christian. All taken together, they form a mine of truth, into which he that searches need never search in vain. We have, first, in these verses, a saying of Christ about Himself. We read that Jesus said,— "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." Our Lord would have us know that He himself is the appointed food of man's soul. The soul of every man is naturally starving and famishing through sin. Christ is given by God the Father, to be the Satisfier, the Reliever, and the Physician of man's spiritual need. In Him and His mediatorial office,— in Him and His atoning death,— in Him and His priesthood,— in Him and His grace, love, and power,— in Him alone will empty souls find their wants supplied. In Him there is life. He is "the bread of life." With what divine and perfect wisdom this name is chosen! Bread is necessary food. We can manage tolerably well without many things on our table, but not without bread. So is it with Christ. We must have Christ, or die in our own sins.— Bread is food that suits all. Some cannot eat meat, and some cannot eat vegetables. But all like bread. It is food both for the Queen and the pauper. So is it with Christ. He is just the Savior that meets the wants of every class.— Bread is food that we need daily. Other kinds of food we take, perhaps, only occasionally. But we want bread every morning and evening in our lives. So is it with Christ. There is no day in our lives but we need His blood, His righteousness, His intercession, and His grace.— Well may He be called, "The bread of life"! Do we know anything of spiritual hunger? Do we feel anything of craving and emptiness in conscience, heart, and affections? Let us distinctly understand that Christ alone can relieve and supply us, and that it is His office to relieve. We must come to Him by faith. We must believe on Him, and commit our souls into His hands. So coming, He pledges His royal word we shall find lasting satisfaction both for time and eternity.— It is written,— "He that cometh unto me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." We have, secondly, in these verses, a saying of Christ about those who come to Him. We read that Jesus said,— "Him that cometh to me I will in nowise cast out." What does "coming" mean? It means that movement of the soul which takes place when a man, feeling his sins, and finding out that he cannot save himself, hears of Christ, applies to Christ, trusts in Christ, lays hold on Christ, and leans all his weight on Christ for salvation. When this happens, a man is said, in Scripture language, to "come" to Christ. What did our Lord mean by saying,— "I will in nowise cast him out"? He meant that He will not refuse to save any one who comes to Him, no matter what he may have been. His past sins may have been very great. His present weakness and infirmity may be very great. But does he come to Christ by faith? Then Christ will receive him graciously, pardon him freely, place him in the number of His dear children, and give him everlasting life. These are golden words indeed! They have smoothed down many a dying pillow, and calmed many a troubled conscience. Let them sink down deeply into our memories, and abide there continually. A day will come when flesh and heart shall fail, and the world can help us no more. Happy shall we be in that day, if the Spirit witnesses with our spirit that we have really come to Christ! We have, lastly, in these verses, a saying of Christ about the will of His Father. Twice over come the solemn words,— "This is the will of him that sent me." Once we are told it is His will, "that every one that seeth the Son may have everlasting life." Once we are told it is His will that, "of all which he hath given to Christ he shall lose nothing." We are taught by these words that Christ has brought into the world a salvation open and free to everyone. Our Lord draws a picture of it, from the story of the brazen serpent, by which bitten Israelites in the wilderness were healed. Every one that chose to "look" at the brazen serpent might live. Just in the same way, every one who desires eternal life may "look" at Christ by faith, and have it freely. There is no barrier, no limit, no restriction. The terms of the Gospel are wide and simple. Every one may "look and live." We are taught, furthermore, that Christ will never allow any soul that is committed to Him to be lost and cast away. He will keep it safe, from grace to glory, in spite of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Not one bone of His mystical body shall ever be broken. Not one lamb of His flock shall ever be left behind in the wilderness. He will raise to glory, in the last day, the whole flock entrusted to His charge, and not one shall be found missing. Let the true Christian feed on the truths contained in this passage, and thank God for them. Christ the Bread of life,— Christ the Receiver of all who come to Him,— Christ the Preserver of all believers,— Christ is for every man who is willing to believe on Him, and Christ is the eternal possession of all who so believe. Surely this is glad tidings and good news! ================== Notes— v35.—[Jesus said...I am the bread of life.] In this verse our Lord begins to speak in the first person. Henceforth in this discourse we hear directly of "I" and "Me" no less than thirty-five times. He drops all further reserve as to His meaning, and tells the Jews plainly, "I am the bread of life,"— the true bread from heaven,— the bread of God which, coming down from heaven, giveth life to the world. The "bread of life" means that spiritual bread which conveys life to the soul,— that living bread which does not merely feed the body, like common bread, but supplies eternal sustenance and nourishment to the eternal soul. It is like "the water of life" (Revelation 22:17), and "living water." (John 4:10.) The reasons why Christ calls Himself "bread," appear to be such as these. He is intended to be to the soul what bread is to the body,— its food.— Bread is necessary food: when men can afford to eat nothing else, they eat bread.— It is food that all need: the king and the pauper both eat bread.— It is food that suits all: old and young, weak and strong, all like bread.— It is the most nourishing kind of food: nothing does so much good, and is so indispensable to bodily health, as bread.— It is food that we need daily and are never tired of: morning and night we go on all our lives eating bread.— The application of these various points to Christ is too plain to need any explanation. One great general lesson is doubtless intended to be drawn from Christ's selection of "bread" as an emblem of Himself. He is given to be the great supply of all the wants of men's souls. Whatever our spiritual necessity may be, however starving, famished, weak, and desperate our condition, there is enough in Christ, and to spare.— He is "bread." Rollock remarks, that as soon as the slightest spiritual desire is manifested by any one, however ignorant and weak, he should be at once directed to Christ. It is what our Lord himself did. As soon as the Jews said,— "Lord, evermore give us this bread," He cried,— "I am the bread of life." He never "quenched the smoking flax." [He that cometh...hunger...believeth...thirst.] The word's "coming" and "believing" in this sentence, appear to mean very nearly one and the same thing. To "come" to Christ is to "believe" on Him, and to "believe" on Him is to "come" to Him,— both expressions mean that act of the soul whereby, under a sense of its sins and necessity, it applies to Christ, lays hold on Christ, trusts itself to Christ, casts itself on Christ.— "Coming," is the soul's movement towards Christ. "Believing," is the soul's venture on Christ.— If there is any difference, it is that "coming" is the first act of the soul when it is taught by the Holy Ghost, and that "believing" is a continued act or habit which never ends. No man "comes" who does not believe; and all who come go on believing. When our Lord says "shall never hunger," and "shall never thirst," He does not mean that a believer on Christ shall no longer feel any want, or emptiness, or deficiency within him. This would not be correct. The best of believers will often cry, like Paul, "Oh, wretched man that I am!" (Romans 7:24.) The man who "hungers and thirsts after righteousness," is blessed. (Matthew 5:6.)— What our Lord does mean is, that faith in Christ shall supply a man's soul with a peace and satisfaction that shall never be entirely taken from him,— that shall endure for ever. The man who eats and drinks material food shall soon be hungry and thirsty as ever. But the man who comes to Christ by faith, gets hold of something that is an everlasting possession. He shall never die of spiritual famine, and perish for want of soul nourishment. He may have his low feelings at seasons. He may even lose his sense of pardon, and his enjoyment of religion. But once in Christ by faith, he shall never be cast away and starved in hell. He shall never die in his sins. (a.) Let us note in this verse how simple are the figures by which our Lord brings His own sufficiency within the reach of man's understanding. He calls himself "bread." It was an idea that even the poorest hearer could understand. He that would do good to the poor, need never be ashamed of using the simplest and most familiar illustrations. (b.) Let us note that faith is a movement of the soul. Its first action is "coming to Christ." Its subsequent life is a constant daily repetition of its first action. To tell people to "sit still and wait," is poor theology. We should bid them arise and come. (c.) Let us note that coming to Christ is the true secret of obtaining soul satisfaction and inward peace. Until we take that step our consciences are never easy. We "hunger and thirst," and find no relief. (d.) Let us note that true believers shall never be altogether cast off and forsaken of God. The man that comes to Christ shall "never hunger nor thirst." The text is one among many proofs of the perseverance of the saints. (e.) Let us note, finally, how simple are the terms of the Gospel. It is but coming and believing that Christ asks at our hands. The most ignorant, the most sinful, the most hardened, need not despair. They have but to "come and believe." Luther, quoted by Besser, remarks on this verse:— "These are indeed dear and precious words, which it is not enough for us merely to know. We must turn them to account, and say, Upon these words I will go to sleep at night and get up in the morning; leaning upon them will I sleep and wake, and work and travel. For though everything were to go to ruin, and though father and mother, emperor and pope, princes and lords, all forsook me, though even Moses could not help me, and I had only Christ to look to, yet He will help me. For His words are sure, and He says 'Hold fast by me: come thou to me, and thou shalt live.' The meaning of these words is, that whoever can believe on that one Man who is called Jesus Christ, shall be satisfied, and cannot suffer either hunger or thirst." v36.—[But I said....ye also have seen Me and Believe not.] It is not quite clear to what our Lord refers in this verse, when He says,— "I said." Some think that He is referring specially to His own words at John 6:26,— "Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles," etc. Others think that He refers generally to the testimony He had frequently borne against the unbelief of the Jewish people, in almost every place where He preached. It seems to me most natural to connect the verse with the saying of the Jews, in John 6:30. They had there said,— "What sign showest thou then, that we may see and believe thee?" Why should we not suppose our Lord in this verse to take up that saying and reply,— "You talk of seeing and believing; I tell you again, and have long told you, that ye have seen me, and yet do not believe"? The connecting link with the preceding verse, appears to be something of this kind:— "I am quite aware that I speak in vain to many of you of the bread of life and of believing. For I have said often, and now say it again, that many of you have both seen me and my miracles, and yet do not believe. Nevertheless, I am not discouraged. I know, in spite of your unbelief, that some will be saved." The unbelief of human nature is painfully exhibited in this verse. Some could even see and hear Christ himself, while He was on earth, and yet remain unbelieving! Surely we have no right to be surprised if we find like unbelief now. Men may actually see Christ with their bodily eyes and have no faith. v37.—[All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.] The connection of this verse with the preceding one seems to be this: "Your unbelief does not move me or surprise me. I foresaw it, and have been aware of it. Nevertheless, your unbelief will not prevent God's purposes taking effect. Some will believe though you remain unbelieving. Everything that the Father gives me will come unto me in due time; believe, and be saved. In spite of your unbelief, all my sheep shall sooner or later come to me by faith, and be gathered within my fold. I see your unbelief with sorrow, but not with anxiety and surprise. I am prepared for it. I know that you cannot alter God's purposes: and in accordance with those purposes, a people will come to me, though you do not." Luther, quoted by Besser, supposes our Lord to say, "This sermon shall not on your account be of none effect, and remain without fruit. If you will not, another will; if you do not believe, yet another does." The English language fails to give the full sense of the Greek in this sentence. The literal meaning of the Greek is, not "all persons whom the Father giveth shall come," but "everything,— the whole thing." It is not a masculine plural, but a neuter singular. The idea is either "that whole mystical body, the company of my believing people, shall come to me," or else "every single part or jot or member of my mystical body shall" come to me, and not one be found missing at last." We learn from these words the great and deep truth of God's election and appointment to eternal life of a people out of this world. The Father from all eternity has given to the Son a people to be His own peculiar people. The saints are given to Christ by the Father as a flock, which Christ undertakes to save completely, and to present complete at the last day. (See John 17:2, John 17:6, John 17:9, John 17:11-12; and John 18:9.) However wicked men may abuse this doctrine, it is full of comfort to a humble believer. He did not begin the work of his salvation. He was given to Christ by the Father, by an everlasting covenant. We learn from these words the great mark of God's elect, whom He has given to Christ. They all come to Christ by faith. It is useless for any one to boast of his election unless he comes to Christ by faith. Until a man comes humbly to Jesus, and commits his soul to him as a believer, we have no dependable evidence of the man's election. Beza remarks, "Faith in Christ is a certain testimony of our election, and consequently of our future glorification." Ferus says, "Cleaving to Christ by faith, thou art sure of thy predestination." We learn from these words the irresistible power of God's electing grace. All who are given to Christ shall come to Him. No obstacle, no difficulty, no power of the world, the flesh, and the devil, can prevent them. Sooner or later they will break through all, and surmount all. If "given," they will "come." To ministers the words are full of comfort. [Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.] These words declare Christ's willingness to save every one that comes to Him. There is an infinite readiness in Christ to receive, pardon, justify, and glorify sinners. The expression "I will in no wise cast out," implies this. It is a very powerful form of negation. "So far from casting out the man that comes to me, I will receive him with joy when he comes. I will not refuse him on account of past sins. I will not cast him off again because of present weaknesses and infirmities. I will keep him to the end by my grace. I will confess him before my Father in the judgment day, and glorify him for ever. In short, I will do the very opposite of casting him out." The distinction between the language of this clause of the text and that of the former clause, should be carefully noticed. They who "shall come to Christ," are "that whole thing" which the Father gives. But it is "each individual man" that comes, of whom Jesus says "I will in no wise cast him out." To "cast out of the synagogue,"— to "cut off from the congregation of Israel,"— to "shut out of the camp," as the leper was shut out (Leviticus 13:46), were ideas with which all Jews were familiar. Our Lord seems to say, "I will do the very opposite of all this." A. Clarke thinks that the idea is that of a poor person coming to a rich man's house for shelter and relief, who is kindly treated and not "cast out." But may we not suppose after all that the latent thought is that of the man fleeing to the city of refuge, according to the law of Moses, who, once admitted, is safe and not "cast out"? (Numbers 35:11-12.) We learn from these words that the one point we should look to is, "whether we do really come to Christ." Our past lives may have been very bad. Our present faith may be very weak. Our repentance and prayers may be very imperfect and poor. Our knowledge of religion may be very scanty. But do we come to Christ? That is the question. If so, the promise belongs to us. Christ will not cast us out. We may remind Him boldly of His own word. We learn from these words, that Christ's offers to sinners are wide, broad, free, unlimited, and unconditional. We must take care that we do not spoil and hamper them by narrow statements. God's election must never be thrust nakedly at unconverted sinners, in preaching the Gospel. It is a point with which at present they have nothing to do. No doubt it is true that none will come to Christ but those who are given to Him by the Father. But who those are that are so given we cannot tell, and must not attempt to define. All we have to do is to invite every one, without exception, to come to Christ, and to tell men that every one who does come to Christ shall be received and saved. To this point we must carefully stick. Rollock observes, how close this glorious promise stands to our Lord's words about God's election and predestination. Election should never be stated nakedly and baldly, without reminding those who hear it of Christ's infinite willingness to receive and save all. Hutcheson remarks, "Saints do indeed ofttimes complain of casting off; but they are the words of sense and not of faith; they may seem to be cast off when really it is not so." v38.—[For I came down....not mine own will etc.] The meaning of this verse appears to be as follows. "I did not become man and enter this world to do anything of my own independent will and volition, and without reference to the will of my Father. On the contrary, I have come to carry out His will. As God, my will is in entire harmony and unity with my Father's will, because I and my Father are one. As man, I have no other will and desire than to do that which is in entire accordance with the will of Him who has sent me to be the Mediator and Friend of sinners."— What the Father's will about man is, our Lord goes on immediately to state in the two following verses. One part of the Father's will is, that nothing should be lost that He has given to the Son. That "will" Christ came to carry out and accomplish.— Another part of the Father's will is, that every one who trusts in Christ, may be saved. That "will" again Christ came to carry out and accomplish.— The verse before us and the two following are closely connected, and should be looked at as one great thought. It was the Father's "will" that free salvation by Christ should be brought near and within the reach of every one, and it was also His "will" that every believer in Christ should be completely and finally saved. To work out and accomplish this will of His Father was Christ's object in coming into the world. The expression, "I came down from heaven," is a strong proof of the pre-existence of Christ. It could not possibly be said of any prophet or apostle, that he "came down from heaven." It is a heavy blow at the Socinian theory that Christ was nothing more than a man. v39.—[This is the Fathers will which hath sent me.] In this verse and the following, Christ explains fully what was the Father's will concerning the Son's mission into the world. It was that He should receive all and lose none, that any one might come to Him, and that no comer should be lost. It is a cheering and pleasant thought, that free and full salvation, and the final perseverance of believers, should be so expressly declared to be "the will of the Father." [Of all...given...lose nothing.] Here again there is the same form of speech as in John 6:37. Literally rendered, the sentence would be,— "that of the whole thing which He has given me, I should not lose anything out of it." The "losing" must necessarily mean, that "I should let nothing be taken away by the power of Satan, and allow nothing to come to ruin by its own inherent weakness." The general sense of the sentence must be, "that I should allow no member of my mystical body to be lost." We have in these words the doctrine of the final perseverance of true believers. It seems hard to imagine stronger words than these to express the doctrine. It is the Father's will that no one whom He has given to Christ should be lost. His will must surely take effect. True believers may err and fail in many things, but they shall never finally be cast away. The will of God the Father, and the power of Christ the Son, are both engaged on their side. We have in these words abundant comfort for all fearful and faint-hearted believers. Let such remember that if they "come'" to Christ by faith, they have been "given" to Christ by the Father; and if given by the Father to Christ, it is the Father's will that they should never be cast away. Let them lean back on this thought, when cast down and disquieted;— "It is the Father's will that I should not be lost." [Should raise it up again at the last day.] We have in these words the Father's will that all Christ's members shall have a glorious resurrection. They shall not only not be lost and cast away while they live: they shall be raised again to glory after they die. Christ will not only justify and pardon, keep and sanctify. He will do even more. He will raise them up at the last day to a life of glory. It is the Father's will that He should do so. The bodies of the saints are provided for no less than their souls. The idea of some writers, which Bullinger mentions with some favour, that the "last day" means the day of each believer's death, and the "raising" his translation in the hour of death to paradise, seems to me utterly destitute of foundation. The words before us are a strong argument for the "first resurrection," as a peculiar privilege of believers. It is said here that believers shall be "raised again," as a special honour and mercy conferred upon them. Yet it is no less clearly said in John 5:28-29, that "ALL that are in the graves shall come forth," both good and bad. It follows, therefore, that there is a resurrection of which saints alone are to be the partakers, distinct from the resurrection of the wicked. What can this be but the first resurrection? (Revelation 20:5.)— It must however in fairness be remembered that resurrection is sometimes spoken of in Scripture as if it was the peculiar privilege of believers, and a thing in which the wicked have no part. In the famous chapter in Corinthians, it is clear that the resurrection of the saints is the only thing in Paul's mind. (1 Corinthians 15:1-58.) That the wicked will be raised again, as well as the righteous, is clearly asserted in several places. But it is sometimes a thing kept in the background. v40.—[This is the will of him that sent me.] These words are repeated in this verse, to show that it is no less the Father's will that Christ should receive sinners, than that Christ should preserve saints. Both things are alike the purpose and intention of God. [Every one which seeth the Son and believeth...life.] These words mean that "every one, without exception, who by faith looks to Christ and trusts in Him for salvation, is allowed by God the Father's appointment to have part in the salvation Christ has provided." There is no barrier, difficulty, or objection. "Every one," is the expression. No one can say he is excluded.— "Seeing and believing," are the only things required. No one can say that the terms are too hard. Does he see and believe? Then he may have everlasting life. The expression "seeth the Son," in this sentence, must evidently mean more than mere seeing with the bodily eyes. It is the looking with faith at Christ. (See John 12:45, where the same Greek word is used.) It is such a look as that of the Israelites, who looked at the brazen serpent, and, looking, were healed. (See John 3:14-15, and Numbers 21:9.) I believe that this was in our Lord's mind when He spake the words of this verse. Just as every serpent-bitten Israelite might look at the brazen serpent— and, as soon as he looked, was cured, so every sin-stricken man may look to Christ and be saved. [I will raise him up at the last day.] These words are repeated, I believe, in order to make it sure that a glorious resurrection shall be the portion of every one that only "looks" at Christ and believes, as well as of those who enjoy the "assurance" that they are given to Christ and shall never be cast away. The humblest believer shall be raised again by Christ at the first resurrection, and eternally glorified, just as certainly as the oldest saint in the family of God. Stier remarks, "This raising up at the last day, twice emphatically affirmed, points out to us the final goal of salvation, and preserving power; after the attainment of which there is no more danger of perishing, or losing again that eternal life, which is now, the body being raised, consummate." Let us mark what abundant comfort there is in this verse for all doubting, trembling sinners, who feel their sins and yet fancy there is no hope for them. Let such observe that it is the will of God the Father, that "every one" who looks at Christ by faith may have everlasting life. It would be impossible to open a wider door. Let men look and live. The will of God is on their side. Calvin remarks on this verse, "The way to obtain salvation is to obey the Gospel of Christ. If it is the will of God that those whom He has elected shall be saved, and if in this manner He ratifies and executes His eternal decrees, whoever he be that is not satisfied with Christ, but indulges in curious inquiries about eternal predestination, such a person desires to be saved contrary to the purposes of God. They are madmen who seek their own salvation, or that of others, in the whirlpool of predestination, not keeping the way of salvation which is exhibited to them."— "To every man, therefore, his faith is a sufficient attestation of the eternal predestination of God." TRUTHS of the weightiest importance follow each other in rapid succession in the chapter we are now reading. There are probably very few parts of the Bible which contain so many "deep things" as the Sixth Chapter of John. Of this the passage before us is a signal example. We learn, for one thing, from this passage, that Christ's lowly condition, when He was upon earth, is a stumbling-block to the natural man. We read that "the Jews murmured, because Jesus said, I am the bread that came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"— Had our Lord come as a conquering king, with wealth and honors to bestow on His followers, and mighty armies in His train, they would have been willing enough to receive Him. But a poor, and lowly, and suffering Messiah was an offense to them. Their pride refused to believe that such an one was sent from God. There is nothing that need surprise us in this. It is human nature showing itself in its true colors. We see the same thing in the days of the Apostles. Christ crucified was "to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness." (1 Corinthians 1:23.) The cross was an offense to many wherever the Gospel was preached.— We may see the same thing in our own times. There are thousands around us who loathe the distinctive doctrines of the Gospel on account of their humbling character. They cannot away with the atonement, and the sacrifice, and the substitution of Christ. His moral teaching they approve. His example and self-denial they admire. But speak to them of Christ's blood,— of Christ being made sin for us,— of Christ's death being the corner-stone of our hope,— of Christ's poverty being our riches,— and you will find they hate these things with a deadly hatred. Truly the offense of the cross is not yet ceased! We learn, for another thing, from this passage, man's natural helplessness and inability to repent or believe. We find our Lord saying,— "No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." Until the Father draws the heart of man by His grace, man will not believe. The solemn truth contained in these words is one that needs careful weighing. It is vain to deny that without the grace of God no one ever can become a true Christian. We are spiritually dead, and have no power to give ourselves life. We need a new principle put in us from above. Facts prove it. Preachers see it. The Tenth Article of our own Church expressly declares it: "The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God." This witness is true. But after all, of what does this inability of man consist? In what part of our inward nature does this impotence reside? Here is a point on which many mistakes arise. Forever let us remember that the will of man is the part of him which is in fault. His inability is not physical, but moral. It would not be true to say that a man has a real wish and desire to come to Christ, but no power to come. It would be far more true to say that a man has no power to come because he has no desire or wish.— It is not true that he would come if he could. It is true that he could come if he would.— The corrupt will,— the secret disinclination,— the want of heart, are the real causes of unbelief. It is here the mischief lies. The power that we want is a new will. It is precisely at this point that we need the "drawing" of the Father. These things, no doubt, are deep and mysterious. By truths like these God proves the faith and patience of His people. Can they believe Him? Can they wait for a fuller explanation at the last day? What they see not now they shall see hereafter. One thing at any rate is abundantly clear, and that is man's responsibility for his own soul. His inability to come to Christ does not make an end of his accountableness. Both things are equally true. If lost at last, it will prove to have been his own fault. His blood will be on his own head. Christ would have saved him, but he would not be saved. He would not come to Christ, that he might have life. We learn, lastly, in this passage, that the salvation of a believer is a present thing. Our Lord Jesus Christ says,— "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life." Life, we should observe, is a present possession. It is not said that he shall have it at last, in the judgment day. It is now, even now, in this world, his property. He hath it the very day that he believes. The subject is one which it much concerns our peace to understand, and one about which errors abound. How many seem to think that forgiveness and acceptance with God are things which we cannot attain in this life,— that they are things which are to be earned by a long course of repentance and faith and holiness,— things which we may receive at the bar of God at last, but must never pretend to touch while we are in this world! It is a complete mistake to think so. The very moment a sinner believes on Christ he is justified and accepted. There is no condemnation for him. He has peace with God, and that immediately and without delay. His name is in the book of life, however little he may be aware of it. He has a title to heaven, which death and hell and Satan can not overthrow. Happy are they that know this truth! It is an essential part of the good news of the Gospel. After all, the great point we have to consider is whether we believe. What shall it profit us that Christ has died for sinners, if we do not believe on Him? "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36.) ================== Notes— v41.—[The Jews then murmured at him.] The verb here is in the imperfect tense. It seems to mean "the Jews were then murmuring, or beginning to murmur about Him." It was a murmuring that went on among themselves concerning our Lord, and was not openly expressed. "At Him," would be more literally rendered "about Him." I venture to think there is a break, pause, or slight interval implied at this point of the conversation. The speakers called here "the Jews," do not appear to be the same who followed our Lord over the lake after being fed with the loaves and fishes, and began the conversation by saying, "When camest thou hither?" (John 6:25.) They would rather appear to be the principal people, or leaders, in the synagogue at Capernaum. They had probably heard our Lord's words to the people who had followed Him over the lake, and were murmuring at them.— To my own mind it is by no means clear that there was not at this point a change in the place where the conversation was carried on. Up to this point it looks as if the conversation was carried on in the open air. At this point our Lord may have gone into the synagogue, and the rulers of it may have taken up the subject and been murmuring about it when He went in.— I throw out this theory with diffidence. It must at least be conceded, that the expressions at John 6:25, "when they had found him at the other side of the sea,....when camest thou hither?" can hardly be supposed to mean that our Lord was then in the synagogue. On the other hand, it is perfectly clear from John 6:59, that the latter part of His discourse, at any rate, was spoken "in the synagogue at Capernaum." Where, then, I ask, does the slight break come in, which is necessary to reconcile these beginning and ending statements? I reply that it seems to me to come in here, at John 6:41. The language, I think, implies a slight pause in time, and a change in the speaker. Stier, I am aware, calls this idea "highly artificial." But I cannot see any force in the objection, and I see much difficulty in any other view. Cyril remarks that a readiness to murmur seemed to be hereditary with the Jews. From the days when they murmured in the wilderness, it was always the same. [Because he said I am the bread....heaven.] It does not appear that our Lord had actually used these words. We must therefore suppose that the Jews constructed the saying out of three things that our Lord had said. One was, "I am the bread of life;"— another, "I came down from heaven;"— and another, "The bread of God is he (or it) which cometh down from heaven." v42.—[Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph?] The word "this," in the Greek, has a latent sneer of contempt about it, which our English version cannot fully convey. It is as if they said, "Is not this fellow," etc. The expression "the son of Joseph," shows what was the impression that the Jews commonly had about our Lord's birth. They believed Him to be the naturally begotten son of Joseph the husband of Mary. The annunciation by the angel Gabriel, the miraculous conception, the miraculous birth of our Lord, are matters of which the Jews apparently had not any knowledge. Throughout the whole of our Lord's ministry, we never find them mentioned. For some wise reason a total silence was observed about them until after our Lord's death, resurrection, and ascension. It was not probably till after the death of Mary and all her family, that this great and deep subject was allowed to be much brought forward in the Church. We can easily see that an unhallowed curiosity might have arisen on questions connected with the incarnation, which would only have done harm. [Whose father and mother we know.] These words seem to show that Joseph was still living at this time. They could hardly have been used if Joseph was dead. They also show that Joseph and Mary were known at Capernaum, where this conversation was held. They had either removed there from Nazareth, or else were so connected with Capernaum and such frequent visitors there, that the inhabitants knew them. [How is it then that he saith.] These words would have been more literally rendered, "How then does this fellow say?" Again, like the beginning of the verse, there is something scornful in the phrase. [I came down from heaven.] The thing that seems to have vexed and angered the Jews was that our Lord should so openly declare His divine origin, by talking of "coming down from heaven." They were offended at the idea of one so lowly in dress, and circumstances, and position, taking on Himself to say, that He was one who had "come down from heaven." Here, as elsewhere, Christ's humiliation was the great stumbling-block. Human nature would not so much object to a conquering Christ,— a Christ with a crown and an army,— a Christ with wealth to shower on all His followers. But a Christ in poverty,— a Christ preaching nothing but heart religion,— a Christ followed by none but poor fishermen and publicans,— a Christ coming to suffer and die and not to reign,— such a Christ was always an offense to many in this world, and always will be. Rollock remarks with great truth, that with many persons, "reasoning" (so called) is the grand obstacle to conversion. v43.—[Jesus answered and said.] This phrase is almost the same as that used in John 5:19, when our Lord began what many think was His formal defense of Himself before the Sanhedrim. It leads me to think, as I have already said, that there is a slight break at this point of the chapter, and a slight pause, if only of a few hours in time. Our Lord knew by His divine knowledge that the Jews were murmuring and saying contemptuous things about Him, and He therefore took up their thoughts, and made a reply to them. [Murmur not among yourselves.] This seems a mild hint that they need not waste their time in murmuring. It neither surprised our Lord, nor discouraged Him. It is as though He said. "Your murmuring is only what I am prepared to expect. I know what human nature is. I am not moved by it. Think not that your unbelief will shake my confidence in my divine mission, or prevent my saying what I do. I know that you cannot naturally understand such things as I am speaking of, and I will proceed to tell you why. But cease from these useless murmurings, which neither surprise nor stop me." Webster thinks that the idea is the same as that in John 3:7-12, "I have harder things still to say." (See John 5:28.) v44.—[No man can come...except the Father draw him.] The connection between this verse and the preceding one is not clear. Like many passages in John's writings, the language is elliptical and the link must be supplied. But the precise link in the present case is not very evident. I believe it is something of this sort:— "You are murmuring among yourselves because I speak of coming down from heaven; and you are making my apparently low origin an excuse for not believing on me. But all the time the fault is not in my sayings, but in your want of grace, and your unbelief. There is a deeper and more solemn truth, to which you seem totally blind: and that is, man's need of God's grace in order to believe on me. You are never likely to believe until you acknowledge your own corruption, and ask for grace to draw your souls to me. I am aware that it needs something more than argument and reasoning to make any one believe in me. Your unbelief and murmuring do not surprise me or discourage me. I neither expect to see you or any one else believe until you are drawn by my Father."— This, or something like it, seems to me the connecting link. One thing at any rate is certain. Our Lord did not mean to excuse the unbelief of His hearers. He rather desired to magnify their danger and guilt, and to make them see that faith in Him was not so easy an affair as they supposed. It was not knowledge of His origin alone, but the drawing grace of God the Father which they needed. Let them awake to see that, and cry for grace before it was too late. The general lesson of the sentence, apart from the connection, is one of vast importance. Our Lord lays down the great principle,— "That no man whatsoever can come to Christ by faith, and really believe in Him, unless God the Father draws him so to come, and inclines his will to believe." The nature of man since the fall is so corrupt and depraved, that even when Christ is made known and preached to him, he will not come to Him and believe in Him without the special grace of God inclining his will, and giving him a disposition to come. Moral suasion and advice alone will not bring him. He must be "drawn." This is no doubt a very humbling truth, and one which in every age has called forth the hatred and opposition of man. The favorite notion of man is that he can do what he likes, repent or not repent, believe or not believe, come to Christ or not come,— entirely at his own discretion. In fact man likes to think that his salvation is in his own power. Such notions are flatly contradictory to the text before us. The words of our Lord here are clear and unmistakable, and cannot be explained away. (a.) This doctrine of human impotence, whether man likes it or not, is the uniform teaching of the Bible. The natural man is dead, and must be born again, and brought to life. (Ephesians 2:1.) He has neither knowledge, nor faith, nor inclination toward Christ, until grace comes into his heart. Man never of himself begins with God. God must first begin with man. And this beginning is just the "drawing" of the text. (b.) It is the doctrine of the Church of England, as shown in the 10th Article, and of every Protestant confession of faith which dates from the 16th and 17th centuries. (c.) Last, but not least, it is the doctrine of experience. The longer ministers of the Gospel live, the more do they find that there is something to be done in every heart which neither preaching, teaching, arguing, exhorting, or means of grace can do. When all has been done, God must "draw," or there is no fruit.— The more the holiest Christians are examined, the more general is their testimony found, that without grace they never would have been converted, and that God "drew" them, or else they never would have come to Christ. And it is a curious fact, moreover, that many who profess to deny man's impotence in theory, often confess it in their prayers and praises, almost in spite of themselves. Many people are very low Arminians in print or in the pulpit, but excellent Calvinists on their knees. When our Lord says, "No man can come unto me," we must carefully remember that it is moral inability and not physical inability that he speaks of. We are not to suppose that any man can have a sincere and hearty wish to come to Christ, and yet be prevented by some mysterious impotence. The impotence lies in man's will. He cannot come because he will not come.— There is an Old Testament sentence which throws much light on the expression before us. It is said of Joseph's brethren, that "they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him." (Genesis 37:4.) Any one must see at a glance what this "could not" means. They "could not" because they would not. When our Lord says, "Except the Father draw him," we must not suppose that the "drawing" means such a violent drawing, as the drawing of a prisoner to a jail, or of an ox to the slaughterhouse, a "drawing" in short against a man's will. It is a drawing which a Father effects through the man's own will, by creating a new principle within him. By the unseen agency of the Holy Ghost, He works on the man's heart, without the man himself knowing it at the time, inclines him to think, induces him to feel, shows him his sinfulness, and so leads him at length to Christ. Every one that comes to Christ is so drawn. Scott remarks, "The Father as it were cures the fever of the soul; He creates the appetite; He sets the provisions before the sinner; He convinces him that they are wholesome and pleasant, and that he is welcome; and thus the man is drawn to come and eat and live for ever." The well-known quotation from Augustine, which seems so great a favorite with many commentators on this text, appears to me defective. He argues that God's drawing of men to Christ is so entirely a drawing through man's will, that it is like drawing the sheep by offering to it food,— like drawing and alluring a child by offering him nuts.— But there is this wide difference, that both the sheep and the child have a natural taste and inclination for the thing offered. Man, on the contrary, has none at all. God's first act is to give man a will to come to Christ. As the 10th Article of the Church of England says, we need "the grace of Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will." The theory that all members of the Church and all baptized people are "drawn by God," appears to me a most baseless theory, and practically a most mischievous one. It would reduce the "drawing" to nothing, and make it a thing which the majority of 'Christians' resist. [Note, single quote marks were added around the word Christians in the last sentence to avoid confusion. These were not in the original text of Expository Thoughts; Mr. Ryle is referring to professing Christians, as is clear from the first sentence of this paragraph.] I believe the drawing is a thing that belongs to none but God's elect, and is a part of the procedure by which their salvation is effected. They are chosen in Christ from all eternity, and then drawn to Christ in time. There are several very important principles of theology connected with this remarkable sentence, which it may be useful to put down together, before we leave the passage. (a.) We must never suppose that the doctrine of this verse takes away man's responsibility and accountableness to God for his soul. On the contrary, the Bible always distinctly declares that if any man is lost, it is his own fault. He "loses his own soul." (Mark 8:36.) If we cannot reconcile God's sovereignty and man's responsibility now, we need not doubt that it will be all plain at the last day. (b.) We must not allow the doctrine of this verse to make us limit or narrow the offer of salvation to sinners. On the contrary, we must hold firmly that pardon and peace are to be offered freely through Christ to every man and woman without exception. We never know who they are that God will draw, and have nothing to do with it. Our duty is to invite all, and leave it to God to choose the vessels of mercy. (c.) We must not suppose that we, or anybody else, are drawn, unless we come to Christ by faith. This is the grand mark and evidence of any one being the subject of the Father's drawing work. If "drawn," he comes to Christ, believes, and loves. Where there is no faith and love, there may be talk, self-conceit, and high profession. But there is no "drawing" of the Father. (d.) We must always remember that God ordinarily works by means, and specially by such means as He himself has appointed. No doubt He acts as a Sovereign in drawing souls to Christ. We cannot pretend to explain why some are drawn and others are not drawn. Nevertheless, we must carefully maintain the great principle that God ordinarily draws through the instrumentality of His Word. The man that neglects the public preaching and private reading of God's Word, has no right to expect that God will draw him. The thing is possible, but highly improbable. (e.) We must never allow ourselves or others to waste time in trying to find out, as a first question in religion, whether we are drawn of God the Father, elect, chosen, and the like. The first and indeed the main question we have to do with is, whether we have come to Christ by faith. If we have, let us take comfort and be thankful. None come to Him unless they are drawn. Augustine remarks: "If thou dost not desire to err, do not seek to determine whom God draws, and whom He does not draw; nor why He draws one man and not another. But if thou thyself art not drawn by God, pray to Him that thou mayest be drawn." The words of the 17th Article of the Church of England are weighty and wise:— "We must receive God's promises in such wise as they are generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and in our doings, that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God." Whether the "drawing" of God the Father is irresistible or not, is a point on which good men differ greatly. My own opinion is decided that it is irresistible. Those whom the Father draws and calls, always "obey the calling." (See 17th Article of the Church of England.) As Rollock truly remarks, there is often a great fight and struggle when the drawing grace of God first begins to work on the soul, and the consequence is great distress and depression. But when grace once begins it always wins the victory at last. [I will raise him up at the last day.] This is the same sentence that we have had twice already, and shall have once again. Whosoever does come to Christ, and has the great mark of faith, shall be raised by Christ to a life of eternal glory at the last day. None come but those who are "drawn;" but all who do come shall be raised. v45.—[It is written...prophets...taught of God.] Our Lord here confirms the doctrine of the necessity of divine teaching, by reference to the Scriptures. He had told the Jews nothing but what their own Scriptures taught, and what they ought to have known themselves. It is not quite clear whether our Lord referred to one particular quotation, or to the general testimony of the prophetical Scriptures. The words of Isaiah (Isaiah 54:13) are most like the sentence before us:— "All thy children shall be taught of God." The Greek of the Septuagint version of that text rather favours the idea that our Lord referred to it. On the whole, however, I incline to the opinion that no one particular text is referred to. It was the general doctrine of the prophets that in the days of the Gospel men should have the direct teaching of God. The words do not mean that under the Gospel all mankind, or all members of the professing Christian Church, shall be "taught of God." It rather means that all who are God's children, and come to Christ under the Gospel, shall be taught of God. It is like "this is the true light that lighteth every man," (John 1:9,) where it does not mean that all are lighted, but that such as are lighted are lighted by Christ. [Every man...heard...learned of the father, cometh unto me.] The meaning of this sentence seems to be— "Every man that comes to me has first heard and learned of the Father." It is useless to talk of being taught by God, and of God being our Father, if we do not come to Christ for salvation. Bishop Hooper remarks, "Many men understand the words, 'except the Father draws him,' in a wrong sense, as though God did require in a reasonable man no more than in a dead post, and do not mark the words that follow, 'every man that hath heard Christ;' God draweth with His Word and the Holy Ghost. Man's duty is to hear and learn: that is to say, receive the grace offered, consent unto the promises, and not refuse the God that calleth."—Hooper on Ten Commandments. v46.—[Not that any man hath seen the Father.] This sentence seems put in, by way of parenthesis, to prevent mistakes in the minds of our Lord's hearers, both as to the kind of teaching He meant, and the person He intended when He spake of the Father. The Father was the eternal God whom no man had seen nor could see. The teaching was that inward teaching of the heart which the Father gave by His Spirit. [He which is of God, he hath seen the Father.] Our Lord plainly means Himself in this verse. It is like John 1:18. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." I cannot but think that one object our Lord has in view, both here and in John 5:37, is to impress on the Jews' minds, that all the appearances of God which are recorded in the Old Testament, were appearances not of the First Person in the Trinity but of the Second. His object in both places, I suspect, was to prepare their minds for the great truth which as yet they were unable to receive, that, however unbelieving they now were, Christ who was now with them, was that very Person who had appeared to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses. v47.—[Verily, verily...He that believeth on me...life.] In this verse our Lord returns to the main thread of his discourse, which had been interrupted at John 6:40. He now speaks out much more clearly and plainly about Himself, dropping all reserve, and revealing Himself as the object of faith, openly and without figure. It is one of those great, broad, simple declarations of the Gospel way of salvation, which we can never know too well. He that would have his sins pardoned and his soul saved must go to Christ for it. It is to "me," says Christ, that he must apply.— What are the terms held out? He must simply trust, lean back, rest on Christ, and commit his soul to His hand. In a word, he must "believe." What shall such a man get by believing? He "hath everlasting life." The very moment he believes, life and peace with God are his own.— (a.) Faith, (b.) the great object of faith, (c.) the present privileges to which faith admits a man, are three subjects which, however often repeated in the Gospel, ought never to weary the Christian's ear. The frequent repetition of this doctrine of "believing," is a strong proof of its great necessity and importance, and of man's infinite backwardness to see, understand, and receive it. "We must believe,— we must believe," says Rollock, "is a truth that needs constant repetition." v48.—[I am that bread of life.] Here our Lord distinctly proclaims to the Jews, that He himself is that "bread of life," that soul-satisfying food, the true bread, the bread of God, of which He had spoken generally in the earlier part of His discourse. He had awakened their curiosity by speaking of that bread as a real thing, and a thing worth their attention. He now unveils the whole truth to them, and tells them plainly, "I am that bread."— "If you ask what it is, and where it is, you have only to look at me." v49.—[Your fathers did eat manna...dead.] In this verse our Lord points out the inferiority of the manna which the Jews ate in the wilderness, to the bread which He himself offered. The manna not only could do nothing for the soul, but was unable to preserve from death those who ate it. Here, as before, we should observe how our Lord speaks of the miraculous feeding of Israel in the wilderness, as an undoubted historical fact. Piscator remarks, that our Lord here says emphatically, "your fathers," and not "our fathers."— He thinks it was intentionally done to remind the Jews how little lasting good their fathers got from the manna, and how unbelieving they were even while they ate of it; for they all died in the wilderness. It was a tacit caution to beware of doing like them. v50.—[This is the bread...heaven...eat...and not die.] The object of this verse is to show the superiority of the "true bread from heaven" to the manna. It is as though our Lord said,— "This bread that cometh down from heaven is bread of such a nature, that he that eateth of it shall never die. His soul shall not be hurt by the second death, and his body shall have a glorious resurrection." I am not without doubt whether our Lord did not point to Himself in speaking the words of this verse:— "This person who now stands before you is that bread which came down from heaven, that any one eating of it should not die." But I throw out the conjecture with much diffidence. Lampe seems to favour the idea,— saying, "the pronoun 'this' is here demonstrative and pointed to Himself." Trapp and Beza also take this view. v51.—[I am the living bread...heaven.] This sentence is a repetition of the idea that has been already given out in John 6:50 and John 6:49. The thought is repeated in order to impress it on the minds of the Jews, and make it impossible for them to misunderstand our Lord's meaning. We must never be ashamed of repetition in religious teaching. [If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever.] The thought here is only an expansion of the one contained in John 6:35. There it is said, "He that comes to Christ shall never hunger." Here it is "The eater of the bread of life shall live for ever." The meaning is that the soul of the man who feeds on Christ by faith, shall never die and be cast away in hell. There is no condemnation for him. His sins are put away. He shall not be hurt by the second death. [The bread...give is my flesh.] In these words our Lord goes even further than he has gone yet, in explaining the great theme of His discourse. When He speaks of "my flesh," I believe he means, "my body offered up in sacrifice on the cross, as an atonement for man's sins." It is our Lord's death that is specially meant. It is not merely His human nature, His incarnation, that feeds souls. It is His death as our substitute, bearing our sins and carrying our transgressions. [Which I will give for the life of the world.] These words appear to me to make it certain that the Lord meant "His body offered in sacrifice as an atonement for sin," when He said "my flesh is the bread." For He does not say, "I have given," or, "I do give," but "I will give." That use of the future tense seems to me a conclusive proof that "my flesh" cannot mean only "my incarnation." The "giving" was about to take place, but had not taken place yet. It could only be His death. When our Lord says, "I will give my flesh," it appears to me that He can only mean, "I will give it to die, to suffer, to be offered up on the cross, as a sacrifice for sin." When our Lord says, "I will give my flesh for the life of the world," I believe He means, "I will give my body to death, on account of, for the sake of, to procure, purchase, and obtain the life of the world." I will give my death to procure the world's life. My death shall be the ransom, the payment, and the redemption-money, by which eternal life shall be purchased for a world of sinners." I hold strongly that the idea of substitution is contained in these words of our Lord, and that the great doctrine of his vicarious death, which is so directly stated elsewhere (Romans 5:6-8) is indirectly implied in this sentence. When our Lord says, "I will give my flesh for the life of the world," I can only see one meaning in the word "world." It means all mankind. And the idea contained, I believe, is the same as we have elsewhere,— viz., that Christ died for all mankind, not for the elect only, but for all mankind. (See John 1:29, and John 3:16, and my notes on each text.) That all the world is not saved is perfectly certain. That many die in unbelief and get no benefit from Christ's death is certain. But that Christ's death was enough for all mankind, and that when He died He made sufficient atonement for all the world, are truths which, both in this text and others like it, appear to my mind incontrovertible. Let us note in this verse what a full and broad offer Christ holds out to sinners. He says,— "If any man, no matter who or what he may have been, if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever." Happy would it be for many, whose whole hearts are set on eating and drinking, and feasting their poor perishable bodies, if they would only look at these words! It is only those who eat this bread who shall live for ever. Let us remember how impossible it is for any one to explain the end of this verse who denies the sacrificial character of Christ's death. Once grant that Christ is only a great teacher and example, and that His death is only a great pattern of self-denial, and what sense or meaning can be got out of the end of this verse? "I will give my flesh for the life of the world"! I unhesitatingly say that the words are unintelligible nonsense if we receive the teaching of many modern divines about Christ's death, and that nothing can make them intelligible and instructive but the doctrine of Christ's vicarious death, and satisfaction on the cross as our Substitute. FEW passages of Scripture have been so painfully wrested and perverted as that which we have now read. The Jews are not the only people who have striven about its meaning. A sense has been put upon it, which it was never intended to bear. Fallen man, in interpreting the Bible, has an unhappy aptitude for turning meat into poison. The things that were written for his benefit, he often makes an occasion for falling. Let us first consider carefully, what these verses do not mean. The "eating and drinking" of which Christ speaks do not mean any literal eating and drinking. Above all, the words were not spoken with any reference to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. We may eat the Lord's Supper, and yet not eat and drink Christ's body and blood. We may eat and drink Christ's body and blood, and yet not eat the Lord's Supper. Let this never be forgotten. The opinion here expressed may startle some who have not looked closely into the subject. But it is an opinion which is supported by three weighty reasons.— For one thing, a literal "eating and drinking" of Christ's body and blood would have been an idea utterly revolting to all Jews, and flatly contradictory to an often-repeated precept of their law.— For another thing, to take a literal view of "eating and drinking," is to interpose a bodily act between the soul of man and salvation. This is a thing for which there is no precedent in Scripture. The only things without which we cannot be saved are repentance and faith.— Last, but not least, to take a literal view of "eating and drinking," would involve most blasphemous and profane consequences. It would shut out of heaven the penitent thief. He died long after these words were spoken, without any literal eating and drinking. Will any dare to say he had "no life" in Him?— It would admit to heaven thousands of ignorant, godless communicants in the present day. They literally eat and drink, no doubt! But they have no eternal life, and will not be raised to glory at the last day. Let these reasons be carefully pondered. The plain truth is, there is a morbid anxiety in fallen man to put a carnal sense on Scriptural expressions, wherever he possibly can. He struggles hard to make religion a matter of forms and ceremonies,— of doing and performing,— of sacraments and ordinances,— of sense and of sight. He secretly dislikes that system of Christianity which makes the state of the heart the principal thing, and labors to keep sacraments and ordinances in the second place. Happy is that Christian who remembers these things, and stands on his guard! Baptism and the Lord's supper, no doubt, are holy sacraments, and mighty blessings, when rightly used. But it is worse than useless to drag them in everywhere, and to see them everywhere in God's Word. Let us next consider carefully, what these verses do mean. The expressions they contain are, no doubt, very remarkable. Let us try to get some clear notion of their meaning. The "flesh and blood of the Son of man" mean that sacrifice of His own body, which Christ offered up on the cross, when He died for sinners. The atonement made by His death, the satisfaction made by his sufferings, as our Substitute, the redemption effected by His enduring the penalty of our sins in His own body on the tree,— this seems to be the true idea that we should set before our minds. The "eating and drinking," without which there is no life in us, means that reception of Christ's sacrifice which takes place when a man believes on Christ crucified for salvation. It is an inward and spiritual act of the heart, and has nothing to do with the body. Whenever a man, feeling his own guilt and sinfulness, lays hold on Christ, and trusts in the atonement made for him by Christ's death, at once he "eats the flesh of the Son of man, and drinks His blood." His soul feeds on Christ's sacrifice, by faith, just as his body would feed on bread. Believing, he is said to "eat." Believing, he is said to "drink." And the special thing that he eats, and drinks, and gets benefit from, is the atonement made for his sins by Christ's death for him on Calvary. The practical lessons which may be gathered from the whole passage are weighty and important. The point being once settled, that "the flesh and blood" in these verses means Christ's atonement, and the "eating and drinking" mean faith, we may find in these verses great principles of truth, which lie at the very root of Christianity. We may learn, that faith in Christ's atonement is a thing of absolute necessity to salvation. Just as there was no safety for the Israelite in Egypt who did not eat the passover-lamb, in the night when the first-born were slain, so there is no life for the sinner who does not eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood. We may learn that faith in Christ's atonement unites us by the closest possible bonds to our Savior, and entitles us to the highest privileges. Our souls shall find full satisfaction for all their wants:— "His flesh is meat indeed, and His blood is drink indeed." All things are secured to us that we can need for time and eternity:— "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Last, but not least, we may learn that faith in Christ's atonement is a personal act, a daily act, and an act that can be felt. No one can eat and drink for us, and no one, in like manner, can believe for us.— We need food every day, and not once a week or once a month,— and, in like manner, we need to employ faith every day.— We feel benefit when we have eaten and drunk, we feel strengthened, nourished, and refreshed; and, in like manner, if we believe truly, we shall feel the better for it, by sensible hope and peace in our inward man. Let us take heed that we use these truths, as well as know them. The food of this world, for which so many take thought, will perish in the using, and not feed our souls. He only that eats of "the bread that came down from heaven" shall live for ever. ================== Notes— v52.—[The Jews therefore strove among themselves.]— This expression shows an increasingly strong feeling among the Jews. When our Lord talked of "coming down from heaven" they "murmured."— When He speaks of giving His "flesh to eat" they "strove."— It is the word rendered "ye fight," in James 4:2. In what way the Jews strove it is not very clear to see. We cannot suppose that there were two contending parties,— one favourable to our Lord, and one opposed to Him. It probably means that they began to reason and argue among themselves in an angry, violent, and excited manner, such as Paul forbids when he says, "The servant of the Lord must not strive." (2 Timothy 2:24.) The same word is used there as here. [How can this man give....flesh to eat.] The likeness should be observed between this question and that of Nicodemus (John 3:4), and that of the Samaritan woman. (John 4:11.) There is an implied scornful sense about the expression "this man." Cyril in commenting on this verse, points out the unreasonableness and inconsistency of the Jews, above all men, in raising difficulties and denying the possibility of things, because they are hard to explain and preternatural. He summons the Jews to explain the miracles in Egypt, and those in the wilderness, and he concludes,— "There are innumerable things, in which if thou inquirest 'how' they can be, thou must overthrow the whole Scripture, and despise Moses and the Prophets." v53.—[Jesus said...Verily, verily, I say.] We come now to one of the most solemn and important sayings that ever fell from our Lord's lips. Having brought the Jews step by step up to this point, He now declares to them the highest and most startling doctrine of the Gospel. [Except ye eat the flesh...drink his blood...no life in you.] When our Lord uses this phrase "except" at the beginning of a sentence, we generally find something of more than ordinary importance in it. Thus, "Except a man be born again,"— "Except ye be converted and become as little children,"— "Except ye repent." (John 3:3, Matthew 18:3, Luke 13:3.) Here He tells the Jews that they "have no life,"— no spiritual life, no title to eternal life,— that they are in fact dead, legally dead, spiritually dead, and on the way to the second death, if they do not "eat the flesh and drink the blood" of the Son of man,— that is, of Himself. In a word, He lays down the principle that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is a thing not only possible but absolutely necessary to salvation— is a thing without which no man can go to heaven. Considering that the Jewish passover was nigh at hand, and that many of our Lord's hearers were probably on their way to Jerusalem to attend it, it seems highly probable that our Lord desired to direct the minds of those He addressed to Himself as the true passover and sacrifice for sin. The latent idea of the sentence, I firmly believe, is that first passover in the land of Egypt, which was kept on the night when the first-born was slain. The flesh and blood of the lamb slain that night were the means of life, safety, and deliverance to the Israelites. In like manner, I believe, our Lord meant the Jews to understand that His flesh and blood were to be the means of life and deliverance from the wrath to come to sinners. To a Jewish ear therefore there would be nothing so entirely new and strange in the sentence as at first sight may appear to us. The thing that would startle them no doubt would be our Lord's assertion that eating His flesh and drinking His blood could be the means of life to their souls, as the flesh and blood of the passover lamb had been to their fathers the salvation of their bodies But what did our Lord mean when He spoke of "eating his flesh and drinking his blood," as things indispensably necessary to life? This is a point on which wide differences of opinion prevail, have prevailed in every age of the Church, and probably will prevail as long as the world stands. (a.) Some think that our Lord meant a literal "eating and drinking" with the mouth of our bodies, and that the "flesh and blood" mean the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord's supper. This is the opinion of almost all the Fathers, though occasional passages may be pointed out in the writings of some, which seem irreconcileable with it. It is the opinion of most Roman Catholic writers, but certainly not of all. It is the opinion of some modern English divines, such as Wordsworth and Burgon. (b.) Some think that the "eating and drinking" here mean the eating and drinking of heart and soul by faith, not of the body,— and that the "flesh and blood" mean Christ's vicarious sacrifice of His body on the cross. They deny entirely that there is any reference whatever to the Lord's supper in the words. They consider that our Lord meant to teach the absolute necessity of feeding by faith on His atonement for sin on the cross. Except a man's soul lays hold by faith on Christ's sacrifice of His body and blood as the only hope of his Salvation, he has no title to or part in eternal life. This is the opinion of Luther, Melancthon, Zwingle, Calvin, Ecolampadius, Brentius, Gualter, Bullinger, Pellican, Beza, Musculus, Flacius, Calovius, Cocceius, Gomarus, Nifanius, Poole, Cartwright, Hammond, Rollock, Hutcheson, Lightfoot, Henry, Burkitt, Whitby, Leigh, Pearce, Lampe, Gill, Tittman, A. Clarke, Barnes, and most modern divines. Among Romanist writers, this opinion is held by Cardinal Cajetan, Ferus, and Jansenius of Ghent. Even Toletus, one of the ablest Romanist commentators on John, admits that the opinions of writers are not unanimous. (c.) Some think that our Lord did not mean any literal eating and drinking, and that He did not refer directly to the Lord's Supper when He spake of His flesh and blood. But they do think that our Lord had the sacrament in view and prospect, when He spoke these words, and that He did tacitly refer to that peculiar communion with His flesh and blood, which He afterwards appointed the Lord's supper to be the means of imparting to believing communicants. This is the opinion, apparently, of Trapp, Doddridge, Olshausen, Tholuck, Stier, Bengel, Besser, Scott, Alford, and some others. I decidedly agree with those who hold the second of these opinions. I believe that our Lord, both in this text and all through this chapter, did not, either directly or indirectly, refer to the Lord's supper,— that by His flesh and blood He did not mean the bread and wine,— that by eating and drinking He did not mean any bodily act. I believe, that by "flesh and blood" He meant the sacrifice of His own body for us, when He offered it up as our Substitute on Calvary. I believe that by "eating and drinking," He meant that communion and participation of the benefits of His sacrifice which faith, and faith only, conveys to the soul. I believe His meaning to be,—"Except ye believe on me as the one sacrifice for sin, and by faith receive into your hearts the redemption purchased by my blood, ye have no spiritual life, and will not be saved." The atonement of Christ, His vicarious death and sacrifice, and faith in it,— these things are the key to the whole passage. I believe this must be kept steadily in view. It is easy to call the opinion to which I adhere Zwinglian, and low, and irreverent. Hard words are not arguments. It is easier to make such assertions than to prove them. I have already shown that many writers, wholly unconnected with Zwingle or Zwinglianism, maintain the opinion. But I submit that the following reasons are weighty and unanswerable:— (1.) To say that our Lord meant the Lord's supper in this text is a most cruel and uncharitable opinion. It cuts off from eternal life all who do not receive the communion. At this rate all who die in infancy and childhood,— all who die of full age without coming to the communion,— the whole body of the Quakers in modern times,— the penitent thief on the cross, all— all are lost for ever in hell! Our Lord's words are stringent and exclusive. Such an opinion is too monstrous to be true. In fact, it was to avoid this painful conclusion that many early Christians, in Cyprian's time, held the doctrine of infant communion. Ferus, the Roman Catholic commentator, who considers the eating and drinking here to be only spiritual, and not to refer to the sacrament, sees this objection clearly and puts it strongly. (2.) To say that our Lord' meant the Lord's supper in this text, opens a wide door to formalism and superstition. Thousands would wish nothing better than to hear,— "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,— that is, eats the sacrnmental bread and drinks the sacramental wine,— has eternal life." Here is precisely what the natural heart of man likes! He likes to go to heaven by formally using ordinances. This is the very way in which millions in the Romish Church have made and are making shipwreck of their souls. (3.) To say that our Lord meant the Lord's supper in the text, is to make a thing absolutely necessary to salvation which Christ never intended to be so. Our Lord commanded us to use the Lord's supper, but He never said that all who did use it would be saved, and all who did not use it would be lost. How many hundreds repent and are converted on their death-beds, far away from ministers and sacraments, and never receive the Lord's supper! And will any one dare to say they are all lost? A new heart and an interest in Christ's cleansing blood are the two things needful to salvation. We must have the Blood and the Spirit, or we have no life in us. Without them no heaven! But the Scripture never puts between a sinner and salvation an outward ordinance, over which the poor sinner may have no control, and may be unable to receive it, without any fault of his own. Archbishop Cranmer remarks, in his "Defense of the True Doctrine of the Sacrament,"— "The Romanists say that good men eat the body of Christ and drink His blood, only at that time when they receive the sacrament: we say that they eat, drink, and feed on Christ continually, so long as they are members of His body.— They say that the body of Christ which is in the sacrament, hath its own proper form and quantity; we say that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually without form or quantity.— They say that the fathers and prophets of the Old Testament did not eat the body nor drink the blood of Christ; we say that they did eat His body and drink His blood, although He was not yet born or incarnate." Ferus says,— "We must take hold of Christ's flesh and blood, not with our hands, but with our faith. He therefore that believes that Christ has given up His body for us, and has shed His blood for the remission of our sins, and through this places all his hope and confidence in Christ crucified, that man really eats the body and blood of Christ." Cardinal Cajetan, quoted by Ford, says,— "To eat the flesh of Christ and to drink His blood is faith in the death of Jesus Christ. So that the sense is this: if ye use not the death of the Son of God, as meat and drink, ye have not the life of the Spirit in you." The opinion which many hold, that although our Lord did not directly mean the Lord's supper in this text, He did refer to it indirectly, and had it in view, seems to me very vague and unsatisfactory, and only calculated to confuse our minds.— Our Lord is speaking of something which He says is absolutely and indispensably necessary to eternal life. Where is the use of dragging in an ordinance which is not absolutely necessary, and insisting that He had it in view?— The truth of the matter, I believe, lies precisely in the opposite direction. I believe that afterwards, when our Lord appointed the Lord's supper, He had in view the doctrine of this text, and used words intended to remind the disciples of the doctrine. But here, I believe, He was speaking of something far higher and greater than the Lord's supper.— When He spoke of the lesser thing, I have no doubt that He intended to refer to the greater, and to turn the disciples' minds back to it. But when He spoke as He did here of the greater thing, I am quite unable to believe that He intended to refer to the lesser. If our Lord did really refer to the Lord's supper when He spake of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, it seems impossible to understand how Roman Catholics can deny the cup to the laity. "Drinking Christ's blood" is distinctly said to be as necessary to eternal life as "eating Christ's body." Yet the Romish Church will not allow the laity to drink Christ's blood! It is evidently the pressure of this argument which makes some Roman Catholic writers deny that this passage refers to the sacrament. It is a mistake to suppose that they are unanimous on the point. Rollock starts the question, why our Lord did not plainly tell His hearers that by eating and drinking He meant not a bodily but a spiritual act,— viz., believing. He replies, that in this as in every case, our Lord did not strive so much to make men understand words, as to beget feeling and experimental acquaintance with things. When the heart really begins to feel, words are soon understood. The distinction that Alford and some others draw between the "flesh" and "blood" in this text, appears to me very doubtful. They think that "eating the flesh" refers generally to participation in the benefits of Christ's incarnation and ascension with a human body into heaven; and that "drinking the blood" refers specially to an interest in the benefits purchased by His death.— I am not satisfied that this is correct. At John 6:57, our Lord, speaking briefly of the truth just before enunciated, only says, "He that eateth me, even he shall live by me." Surely "eating" there stands for participation in the benefits of Christ's death as well as life! My own impression is that both "flesh and blood" are mentioned here by our Lord to make it certain to the Jews that He spoke of His death, and of the offering of His whole body in sacrifice on the cross. The body of the sin-offering was just as essential a part of the sacrifice as the blood. (See Leviticus 4:1-12.) So also the body of the passover lamb had to be eaten, as well as the blood sprinkled. The "flesh and blood" are both mentioned here because our Lord had in view the offering of Himself as a sin-offering,— and because he would make it sure that He meant the "death" of His body to be the life of man's soul. It is not Christ incarnate merely, but Christ crucified as our atonement and sin-offering, that man must feed upon if he would have life. v54.—[Whoso eateth...drinketh...eternal life.] This verse is just the converse of the preceding one. As it had been said that without eating and drinking there was no life, so it is now said that he who eats and drinks has life. These words, as I have already remarked, appear to me to make it impossible to interpret the passage of the Lord's supper. Myriads are Communicants who have no spiritual life whatever. Every one, on the other hand, who by faith feeds his soul on Christ's sacrifice for sin, has even now everlasting life. "He that believeth on Him is not condemned."— "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (John 3:18; John 6:47.) The word "whoso" would have been more simply and literally rendered "he that." The "presentness" of a true Christian's privileges should be remarked here again:— "He hath eternal life." The Greek word for "eateth," in this verse and John 6:56, is quite a different word from that used in John 6:53. The reason of the difference is not very clear, and no commentator has hitherto explained it. Leigh, Parkhurst, and Schleusner, all agree that the Greek word used in this verse ordinarily denotes the eating of an animal, in contradistinction to that of a man. Leigh observes that the word "noteth a continuance of eating, as brute beasts will eat all day, and some part of the night." I venture to suggest that the word is purposely used, in order to show that our Lord meant the habit of continually feeding on Him all day long by faith. He did not mean the occasional eating of material food in an ordinance. The word is only used in this verse, John 6:56-58, Matthew 24:38, and John 13:18. [I will raise him up at the last day.] These words are a fourth time repeated, and purposely, in my judgment, to show who they are of whom Christ is speaking. He is not speaking of all who receive the Lord's supper, but of those persons who are "given to him by the Father,"— "who see the Son and believe on him,"— who "are drawn by the Father and come to Christ." (John 6:39-40, John 6:44.) These are the same persons who eat His flesh and drink His blood by faith. To them belongs the privilege of a part in that first and glorious resurrection, when Christ shall call all His people from the grave at His second coming. v55.—[For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.] The word "indeed" here would be more literally rendered "truly;" and the word "meat" answers to our word "food." The meaning is, "My flesh is more truly food, and my blood is more truly drink, than any other food and drink can be. It is food and drink in the highest, fullest, noblest sense,— food and drink for the soul, food and drink that satisfies, food and drink that endures to everlasting life." (See John 6:35.) Rollock remarks, that the best way to understand this verse is to make trial of Christ, and to feed on Him by faith. We shall soon discover how true the words are. Ferus suggests, that there may be a latent reference here to the forbidden fruit which Satan promised should be "meat and drink indeed" to Adam and Eve. This stands out in contrast to that food. By eating the food Satan held out, came sin and death. By eating the food Christ holds out, comes life and heaven. v56.—[He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood.] These words are precisely the same as those at the beginning of Joh 6:54; and there is no reason why "whoso" there, should not have been "he that," as here. In the one case, the man who eats and drinks Christ's flesh and blood, is said to possess eternal life, and in the other, to be intimately joined to Christ. But it is the same person. [Dwelleth in me and I in him.] This expression is meant to convey to our minds the close and intimate union that there is between Christ and a true Christian. Such a man is said to dwell, or abide in Christ, and Christ to dwell, or abide in him. Christ is the house, or home, or hiding-place, within which the believer's soul, as it were, resides;— and Christ dwells in the believer's heart by His Spirit, comforting, nourishing, and strengthening him. (See 1 John 3:24, and John 14:16-23.) See also John 15:4, where "Abide in me and I in you," might have been equally well rendered, "dwell in me and I in you." Just as "food and drink" received into a man's body become part of the man's self, and are incorporated into his system, and add to his health, comfort, and strength,— so when a man by faith feeds his soul on Christ's sacrifice for his sins, Christ becomes as it were part of himself, and he becomes part of Christ. In a word, there is as intimate an union between Christ and the believer's soul, as there is between a man's food and a man's body. v57.—[As the living Father, etc.] This verse explains the intimate union between Christ and the true believer, by a far higher and more mysterious figure than that of the union of our food and our body. The illustration used, is drawn from that unspeakable and inexplicable union which exists between the Two First Persons in the Trinity— God the Father and God the Son.— It is as though our Lord said, "Just as the Father sent me into the world, to be born of a woman, and take the manhood into God, and yet, though I am among you as man, I live in the closest union and communion with God,— even so the man that by faith feeds his soul on my sacrifice for sin, shall live in the closest union and communion with me."— In a word, the union between Christ and the true Christian, is as real and true and close and inseparable as the union between God the Father and God the Son.— While the Son was in the world, the carnal eye discerned little or nothing of His union with the Father. Yet it was a true thing and existed. Just so the carnal eye may see little or nothing of the union between Christ and the man who feeds by faith on Christ. Yet it is a real true union.— Just as the Son, though equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, does live, in an ineffable and inscrutable way, through and by the Father, the Son never being without the Father nor the Father without the Son,— so in like manner the man that feeds on Christ enjoys spiritual life, only through and by Christ, Is not this Paul's thought:— "I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me."— "To me to live is Christ." (Galatians 2:20. Philippians 1:21.) Whether our Lord is here speaking of His human nature or of His Divine nature, is not quite clear. I incline to think with Cyril and Chrysostom, that it is the Divine nature. Rollock remarks, that we have three living Ones spoken of here. (1.) The living Father. (2.) The living Son. (3.) The living believer. As we are sure of the life of the Father, so we may be sure of the life of the believer. The three lives are linked together. Hutcheson remarks, "Christ's living by the Father, is not only a pledge of our life, but our life holds also some proportion or similitude to His. For as He hath life communicated by eternal generation, so by regeneration we are made partakers of the Divine nature." Winer remarks, that the Greek preposition rendered "by" in this verse, means literally "on account of;" and that the sentence means, strictly and properly; "I live owing to the Father:" that is, "I live because the Father lives." Schleusner and Parkhurst say much the same. The "living Father" is a remarkable phrase. It is like the "living God." (John 6:69. Acts 14:15. Romans 9:26. 2 Corinthians 3:3, 2 Corinthians 6:16. 1 Thessalonians 1:9. 1 Timothy 6:17.) It must mean the Father who is the source of life, who "hath life in himself." (John 5:26.) v58.—[This is that bread, etc.] Here our Lord sums up the whole discourse. He reverts to the saying with which the Jews had begun, about the fathers eating manna in the wilderness, and repeats the main points He would have His hearers carry away. These points were as follows:— (1.) That He himself was the true bread which had come down from heaven, to feed the world by the sacrifice of Himself. (2.) That they must not cling to the idea that their fathers had ever eaten this true bread, for they all died in the wilderness, and their souls received no benefit from the manna. (3.) And that those, on the contrary, who would eat of the bread He had come down to give, should live for ever, have everlasting life, and their souls never die.— It is as though He said,— "This sacrifice of Myself is the true bread from heaven, of which I spoke at the beginning. The eaters of this bread are in far better circumstances than your fathers when they ate manna in the wilderness. Your fathers died in spite of the manna, and beside that received from it no spiritual benefit whatever. He, on the contrary, who by faith eats the bread of my sacrifice for sin, shall have everlasting life, and his soul shall never die."— All the expressions in the verse, we should remark, have been used frequently in the discourse, and now all are grouped together, and presented in one view. v59.—[These things said...synagogue...Capernaum.] This verse is not sufficiently noticed, I venture to think. I ask any one to compare it with the beginning of the discourse in this chapter, at John 6:25,—"When they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said," etc. Are we to suppose that they found Him in the synagogue? I cannot think it. To me it seems that there must have been a slight break or pause in the discourse. It began at the landing-place, or outside the city. It was resumed after a short interval, of a few hours perhaps, in the synagogue. And as I have said before, the break appears to me to be at John 6:41. Both the discourse of this chapter, and that of the preceding one, have this point in common, that they seem to have been delivered before formal assemblies of Jews. In concluding the notes on this very important passage, I take occasion to express my entire dissent from the common opinion held by many, that the sixth chapter of John was intended to teach the true doctrine of the Lord's supper, as the third was intended to teach the truth about baptism.— My own opinion is flatly contrary. I hold that in neither chapter are the sacraments referred to at all. I believe that the third chapter was intended to counteract erroneous views about baptism, by teaching the far higher truth of spiritual regeneration; and I believe that the sixth chapter was intended to counteract erroneous views about the Lord's supper, by teaching the far higher truth of the necessity of feeding on Christ's sacrifice by faith.— In fact, the true antidote to wrong views of baptism and the Lord's supper, is a right understanding of the 3rd and 6th chapters of John's Gospel, and the whole of John's first Epistle. Writing, as John did, the last of all the inspired writers, I believe he was divinely inspired to record things which the Church of Christ needed most to know. And I regard it as a most striking fact, that while he altogether omits to describe the institution of the Lord's supper, and says little or nothing about baptism in the Gospel, he dwells at the same time most strongly on these two mighty truths, which he foresaw were in danger of being forgotten,— viz.: the new birth, and faith in the Atonement.— Surely it is possible to honour baptism and the Lord's supper, without thrusting them in everywhere in our interpretation of Scripture. WE learn from these verses that some of Christ's sayings seem hard to flesh and blood. We are told that "many" who had followed our Lord for a season, were offended when He spoke of "eating his flesh and drinking his blood." They murmured and said, "This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" Murmurs and complaints of this kind are very common. It must never surprise us to hear them. They have been, they are, they will be as long as the world stands. To some Christ's sayings appear hard to understand. To others, as in the present case, they appear hard to believe, and harder still to obey. It is just one of the many ways in which the natural corruption of man shows itself. So long as the heart is naturally proud, worldly, unbelieving, and fond of self-indulgence, if not of sin, so long there will never be wanting people who will say of Christian doctrines and precepts, "These are hard sayings; who can hear them?" Humility is the frame of mind which we should labor and pray for, if we would not be offended. If we find any of Christ's sayings hard to understand, we should humbly remember our present ignorance, and believe that we shall know more by and bye. If we find any of His sayings difficult to obey, we should humbly recollect that He will never require of us impossibilities, and that what He bids us do, He will give us grace to perform. We learn, secondly, from these verses, that we must beware of putting a carnal meaning on spiritual words. We read that our Lord said to the murmuring Jews who stumbled at the idea of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." It is useless to deny that this verse is full of difficulties. It contains expressions "hard to be understood." It is far more easy to have a general impression of the meaning of the whole sentence, than to explain it word by word. Some things nevertheless we can see clearly and grasp firmly. Let us consider what they are. Our Lord says, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth." By this He means that it is the Holy Ghost who is the special author of spiritual life in man's soul. By His agency it is first imparted, and afterwards sustained and kept up. If the Jews thought He meant that man could have spiritual life by bodily eating or drinking, they were greatly mistaken. Our Lord says, "The flesh profiteth nothing." By this He means that neither His flesh nor any other flesh, literally eaten, can do good to the soul. Spiritual benefit is not to be had through the mouth, but through the heart. The soul is not a material thing, and cannot therefore be nourished by material food. Our Lord says, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." By this He signifies that His words and teachings, applied to the heart by the Holy Ghost, are the true means of producing spiritual influence and conveying spiritual life. By words thoughts are begotten and aroused. By words mind and conscience are stirred. And Christ's words especially are spirit-stirring and life-giving. The principle contained in this verse, however faintly we may grasp its full meaning, deserves peculiar attention in these times. There is a tendency in many minds to attach an excessive importance to the outward and visible or "doing" part of religion. They seem to think that the sum and substance of Christianity consists in Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, in public ceremonies and forms, in appeals to the eye and ear and bodily excitement. Surely they forget that it is "the Spirit that quickeneth," and that the "flesh profiteth nothing." It is not so much by noisy public demonstrations, as by the still quiet work of the Holy Ghost on hearts that God's cause prospers. It is Christ's words entering into consciences, which "are spirit and life." We learn, lastly, from these verses, that Christ has a perfect knowledge of the hearts of men. We read that "He knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him." Sentences like this are found so frequently in the Gospels that we are apt to underrate their importance. Yet there are few truths which we shall find it so good for our souls to remember as that which is contained in the sentence before us. The Savior with whom we have to do is one who knows all things! What light this throws on the marvelous patience of the Lord Jesus in the days of His earthly ministry! He knew the sorrow and humiliation before Him, and the manner of His death. He knew the unbelief and treachery of some who professed to be His familiar friends. But "for the joy that was set before Him" he endured it all. (Hebrews 12:2.) What light this throws on the folly of hypocrisy and false profession in religion! Let those who are guilty of it recollect that they cannot deceive Christ. He sees them, knows them, and will expose them at the last day, except they repent. Whatever we are as Christians, and however weak, let us be real, true, and sincere. Finally, what light this throws on the daily pilgrimage of all true Christians! Let them take comfort in the thought that their Master knows them. However much unknown and misunderstood by the world, their Master knows their hearts, and will comfort them at the last day. Happy is he who, in spite of many infirmities, can say with Peter: "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." (John 21:17.) ================== Notes— v60.—[Many therefore of his disciples.] It is plain that these were not true believers. Many who followed our Lord about, and were called His "disciples," had no real grace in their hearts, and followed Him from carnal motives. We must expect to see the same thing in every age. Not all who come to church, nor all who profess to admire and follow popular preachers, are real Christians. This is far too much forgotten. [This is an hard saying.] This does not mean "hard" in the sense of being "difficult to understand." It is not so much "hard to the comprehension," as "hard to the feelings." Parkhurst defines it as "shocking to the mind." It is the same word that is used in the parable of the talents: "Thou art an hard man" (Matthew 25:24): and in the Epistle of Jude: "the hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 1:15.) Some think that the "hard saying" means the whole discourse. My own opinion is, that it refers specially to our Lord's concluding words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. [Who can hear it?] The "hearing" here is evidently the hearing so as to believe, receive, and obey. "Who can believe, receive, and obey such a saying as this?" (See John 5:24; John 8:43; John 10:3, John 10:16, John 10:27; John 18:37; 1 John 4:6.) v61.—[Jesus knew in himself.] This means, that He knew by that divine knowledge, through which He always "knew what was in man." (John 2:25.) [His disciples murmured at it.] This would be more literally rendered "His disciples are murmuring about this." He spoke at the very moment of their murmuring. [Doth this offend you?] This means, "Is this saying of mine a stumbling-block to you? Is the doctrine of eating my flesh and drinking my blood, too humbling a doctrine for your hearts to receive?" v62.—[What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend.] This means, "What will ye think and say of my ascension into heaven?" "What will your feelings be, if you behold this body of mine going up to that heaven from whence I came down? Will you not be much more offended?" (See John 3:12.) The first thing, we must remember, that the Jews "murmured" about, was our Lord's saying that He "came down from heaven." The second thing was, His saying that He would "give them His flesh to eat." Both times our Lord's human body was the subject.— Here our Lord asks them what they would think, if they saw that same body "ascending up" into heaven. Even then, after his ascension, they would have to "eat His flesh, and drink His blood," if they desired eternal life. What would they think of that? Would they not find it even more difficult to receive and believe? [Where He was before.] This is an expression which no Socinian can explain. It is a clear assertion of the "pre-existence" of Christ. Some think, as Olshausen and Tholuck, that our Lord only means generally, "If you are offended and unbelieving, even now, while I am with you, how much more will ye be, when I go away." But this is a frigid and unsatisfactory interpretation. It is fair to say that Stier thinks, with Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, and others, that our Lord did not mean that His ascension would be a greater difficulty to His disciples, but that, on the contrary, it would remove their doubts and weaken the offense which they now felt. Hutcheson and Alford seem to agree with this. But I cannot see it. Stier thinks our Lord implied, "Then, after my ascension, it will be disclosed to you how, and in what way, my human corporeity, become heavenly and glorified, may be given to be eaten, and to be drunk." (Compare John 8:28.) v63.—[It is the Spirit, &c.] This text is, perhaps, one of the most difficult in the Gospel of John, It is easy to slur it over, and be satisfied with a vague impression that it means "We are to put a spiritual sense on our Lord's words." That, no doubt, is a true idea. But when we come to a close examination of the words which compose the verse, I think no one can be satisfied with such a loose interpretation of Scripture. That our Lord's words "are to be taken spiritually," may be very true. But to say so is not to explain the verse. What is meant by the expression, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth"? (a.) Some think that "the Spirit" here means, "the divine nature of Christ" (as Romans 1:4; 1 Peter 3:18), in contradistinction to His human nature, here called, His "flesh." (See 1 Corinthians 15:45.) They consider our Lord to mean, "It is my divine nature, as God, which is the means of communicating spiritual benefit to men. My human nature, as flesh, could of itself do no good to souls. It is not, therefore, any carnal eating of my flesh, that could be of use to you, and I did not mean any such eating." This is the opinion of Cyril, Cartwright, Poole, Bishop Hall, Trapp, Toletus, Rollock, Hutcheson, Leigh, Burkitt, Quesnel, Burgon, and Wordsworth. (b.) Some think that "the Spirit" here means "the Holy Spirit," the Third Person of the Trinity. They consider our Lord to mean, "It is the Holy Spirit who alone can convey spiritual life to the soul of man. The mere eating of flesh, whether my flesh, or any other flesh, cannot do good to the inner man. When, therefore, I spoke of 'eating my flesh,' I did not mean the bodily act of eating any literal flesh, but a very different kind of eating, and a very different sort of flesh." This is the opinion of Zwingle, Melancthon, Calvin, Bucer, Ecolampadius, Pellican, Flacius, Bullinger, Cocceius, Diodati, Piscator, Musculus, Baxter, Lampe, Henry, Scott, Stier, Besser, Alford. (c.) Some think that "the Spirit" here means, "the spiritual doctrine, or sense," as opposed to "the letter," or literal sense of scriptural language. (2 Corinthians 3:6.) They consider the sentence to mean, "It is the spiritual sense of my words, and not the literal, which is quickening, or life-giving to the soul. When I spoke of 'my flesh,' I did not mean my flesh literally, but my flesh in a spiritual sense. My flesh literally could be of no use to any one." This seems to be the opinion of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Brentius, Beza, Ferus, Cornelius á Lapide, Schottgen, Pearce, Parkhurst, A. Clarke, Faber, Barnes, Webster. But it is not easy to make out clearly, in every instance, what is the precise meaning put on the words, "the Spirit," by the interpreters who take this third view. There are not a few shades of variety in their opinions. I must acknowledge, that I find it difficult to give a decided opinion on the comparative merits of these three views of the expression before us. There is something to be said for each of the three. On the whole, I think the second and third are more satisfactory than the first; and I incline to prefer the second to the third. But I say this with much hesitation. Rollock, who holds strongly that "the Spirit" means Christ's divine nature, maintains, that "the flesh," means the whole human nature of Christ. He thinks that the meaning of "the flesh profiteth nothing" is, that all the works of our Lord's body, whether in life or death, His fulfilling the law, His sufferings on the cross, derive their whole efficacy from the union of the two natures— "It is the divine nature that is life-giving. The human nature, alone and separate from the divine, is useless and unprofitable."— He holds, therefore, that to eat the human nature of Christ alone, i. e., His flesh, could do us no good; as, unless we could eat His divine nature also, it would be unprofitable. He concludes, therefore, that the only eating of Christ that can be useful to the soul, must, of necessity, be the spiritual eating of faith, and not any carnal eating of the Lord's Supper. Hutcheson agrees with this view. The expression, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life," is just as difficult as the former part of the text. The word "spirit," here, at any rate, cannot mean the divine nature of Christ. If it were so taken, the sentence would be unmeaning.— The word Spirit must either mean the "Holy Spirit," or "the spiritual sense," as opposed to the letter. The sentence then might be paraphrased in either of the following ways:— (1.) "The words that I speak to you, received into your hearts and believed, are the Spirit's influence, the ministration of the Spirit, and the Spirit's means of giving you life." This is Rollock's view. Or else, (2.) "The words that I speak unto you, are to be taken in a spiritual sense; or, are spiritual words, and, taken in that sense, are life-giving to the soul."— This is Augustine's view. I must honestly confess that neither of these explanations is quite satisfactory; but they are the nearest approach I can see to a satisfactory interpretation. The sentence is evidently a concise elliptical one, and it seems impossible to convey it in English, without a paraphrase. Alford paraphrases the sentence thus: "The words that I have spoken, viz., the words 'my flesh and blood,' are spirit and life,—spirit, not flesh only,— living food, not carnal and perishable." I venture to think, that this explanation is not more precise, or satisfactory, than either of those I have suggested. The expression "the words that I speak unto you," must probably be confined to the words our Lord had spoken about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and not referred to the whole discourse. After all, however difficult and elliptical the sentence before us may be, there is a truth which throws light on it, with which every true Christian must be familiar. It is the words of Christ brought home to the hearts of men by the Spirit, which are the great agents employed in quickening and giving spiritual life to men. The Spirit impresses Christ's words on a man's conscience. These words become the parent of thoughts and convictions in the man's mind. From these thoughts springs all the man's spiritual life. The soul is not benefited by bodily actions, such as eating or drinking, but by spiritual impressions, which the Holy Spirit alone can produce. In producing these spiritual impressions the Spirit specially employs the agency of Christ's "words," and hence comes the great principle, that "His words are spirit and life." v64.—[There are some of you that believe not.] The connection of this sentence with the preceding verses seems to be this:— "The true account of your murmuring and thinking my sayings 'hard' is your want of faith. You do not really believe me to be the Messiah, though you have followed me and professed yourselves my disciples. And not really believing in me, you are offended at the idea of eating my flesh and drinking my blood." [Jesus knew from the beginning who...believed not.] This is one of the many places which declare our Lord's Divine knowledge of all hearts and characters. He was never deceived by crowds and apparent popularity, as His ministers often are. When it says "from the beginning," it probably means "from the beginning of His ministry, and from the time when the unbelieving 'many' before Him first professed to be His disciples." Of course our Lord, as God, knew all things "from the beginning" of the world. But it does not seem necessary to suppose that this is meant here. Rollock remarks our Lord's example of patient teaching and preaching to all without exception, though He knew that many did not and would not believe. He points out what a pattern it is to ministers. Christ knew exactly who would believe. Ministers do not know. [Who should betray him.] We should not fail to notice in this expression our Lord's marvelous patience in allowing one whom He knew to be about to betray Him to be one of His Apostles. It was doubtless meant to teach us that false profession must be expected everywhere, and must not surprise us. How much we ought to tolerate and put up with, if our Lord tolerated Judas near him! The pain and sorrow which the foreknowledge of the conduct of Judas must have caused to our Lord's heart, is a circumstance in our Lord's sufferings which ought not to be forgotten. v65.—[And he said, Therefore said I, etc., etc.] The connection of this verse seems to be as follows:— "There are some of you that believe not, and that is the reason why I said to you, that no man can come to me unless the Father gives him grace to come, and draws his heart to me. The Father has not given you grace, and drawn you to me, and therefore you do not believe." THESE verses form a sorrowful conclusion to the famous discourse of Christ which occupies the greater part of the sixth chapter. They supply a melancholy proof of the hardness and corruption of man's heart. Even when the Son of God was the preacher, many seem to have heard in vain. Let us mark in this passage what an old sin backsliding is. We read that when our Lord had explained what He meant by "eating and drinking his flesh and blood,"— "From that time many went back and walked no more with him." The true grace of God no doubt is an everlasting possession. From this men never fall away entirely, when they have once received it. "The foundation of God standeth sure." "My sheep shall never perish." (2 Timothy 2:19; John 10:28.) But there is counterfeit grace and unreal religion in the Church, wherever there is true; and from counterfeit grace thousands may and do fall away. Like the stony ground hearers, in the parable of the sower, many "have no root in themselves, and so in time of temptation fall away." All is not gold that glitters. All blossoms do not come to fruit. All are not Israel which are called Israel. Men may have feelings, desires, convictions, resolutions, hopes, joys, sorrows in religion, and yet never have the grace of God. They may run well for a season, and bid fair to reach heaven, and yet break down entirely after a time, go back to the world, and end like Demas, Judas Iscariot, and Lot's wife. It must never surprise us to see and hear of such cases in our own days. If it happened in our Lord's time and under our Lord's teaching, much more may we expect it to happen now. Above all, it must never shake our faith and discourage us in our course. On the contrary, we must make up our minds that there will be backsliders in the Church as long as the world stands. The sneering infidel, who defends his unbelief by pointing at them, must find some better argument than their example. He forgets that there will always be counterfeit coin where there is true money. Let us mark, secondly, in this passage, the noble declaration of faith which the Apostle Peter made. Our Lord had said to the twelve, when many went back, "Will ye also go away?" At once Peter replied, with characteristic zeal and fervor, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and art sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." The confession contained in these words is a very remarkable one. Living in a professedly Christian land, and surrounded by Christian privileges; we can hardly form an adequate idea of its real value. For a humble Jew to say of one whom Scribes, and Pharisees, and Sadducees agreed in rejecting, "Thou hast the words of eternal life; thou art the Christ," was an act of mighty faith. No wonder that our Lord said, in another place, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 16:17.) But the question with which Peter begins, is just as remarkable as his confession. "To whom shall we go?" said the noble-hearted Apostle. "Whom shall we follow? To what teacher shall we betake ourselves? Where shall we find any guide to heaven to compare with thee? What shall we gain by forsaking thee? What Scribe, what Pharisee, what Sadducee, what Priest, what Rabbi can show us such words of eternal life as thou showest?" The question is one which every true Christian may boldly ask, when urged and tempted to give up his religion, and go back to the world. It is easy for those who hate religion to pick holes in our conduct, to make objections to our doctrines, to find fault with our practices. It may be hard sometimes to give them any answer. But after all, "To whom shall we go," if we give up our religion? Where shall we find such peace, and hope, and solid comfort as in serving Christ, however poorly we serve Him? Can we better ourselves by turning our back on Christ, and going back to our old ways? We cannot. Then let us hold on our way and persevere. Let us mark, lastly, in this passage, what little benefit some men get from religious privileges. We read that our Lord said, "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil." And it goes on, "He spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon." If ever there was a man who had great privileges and opportunities, that man was Judas Iscariot. A chosen disciple, a constant companion of Christ, a witness of His miracles, a hearer of His sermons, a commissioned preacher of His kingdom, a fellow and friend of Peter, James, and John,— it would be impossible to imagine a more favorable position for a man's soul. Yet if anyone ever fell hopelessly into hell, and made shipwreck at last for eternity, that man was Judas Iscariot. The character of that man must have been black indeed, of whom our Lord could say he is "a devil." Let us settle it firmly in our minds, that the possession of religious privileges alone is not enough to save our souls. It is neither place, nor light, nor company, nor opportunities, but grace that man needs to make him a Christian. With grace we may serve God in the most difficult position,— like Daniel in Babylon, Obadiah in Ahab's court, and the saints in Nero's household. Without grace we may live in the full sunshine of Christ's countenance, and yet, like Judas, be miserably cast away. Then let us never rest till we have grace reigning in our souls. Grace is to be had for the asking. There is One sitting at the right hand of God who has said,— "Ask, and it shall be given you." (Matthew 7:7.) The Lord Jesus is more willing to give grace than man is to seek it. If men have it not, it is because they do not ask it. ================== Notes— v66.—[From that time.] It is doubtful whether the Greek words here might not have been better translated, "Upon this,"— "After this conversation." [Many of his disciples.] This expression shows that the number of persons who followed our Lord about, and professed themselves His disciples, must have been large. [Went back.] This is a metaphorical expression, signifying "retreat, desertion, forsaking a position once occupied." It is the same that is rendered in the account of the Jews coming to take our Lord in the garden, "they went backward, and fell to the ground." (John 18:6.) [Walked no more with him.] The simplest view of this expression is, that these deserters from our Lord walked no longer in His company as He went about teaching, as they had done, but returned to their own homes. No minister of the Gospel should feel surprised if the same thing happens to him. Not a few of these very "disciples," probably, had been forward in wishing to make our Lord a "king," the day before. Such is popularity, here to-day and gone to-morrow! v67.—[Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?] We cannot suppose that our Lord asked this, as if He did not know what the Apostles were going to do. We may be sure that He who "knew from the beginning who they were that believed not" (John 6:64), knew the hearts of His Apostles. The question was evidently asked to prove His chosen followers, and to draw forth from them an expression of feeling. (See John 6:6.) The word "will" here, would be more accurately rendered, "Do you wish?" "Have you a will?" We should note that this is the first time John speaks of "the twelve." We know from the other Gospels, that "the twelve" were employed in distributing the loaves and fishes to the five thousand. (Luke 9:12, Luke 9:17.) v68.—[Then Simon Peter answered him.] The fervour and impetuosity of Peter's character come out here, as in other places in the Gospels. He is the first to speak, and to speak for his brethren as well as himself. Only the night before this very scene, he had been the first, in the storm on the lake, to say, "Lord, if it be thou, bid me to come unto thee on the water." (Matthew 14:28.) And here, in like manner, he is the first to profess loudly his determination not to go away, and his faith in Christ. [To whom shall we go?] This question is a strong burst of feeling. "To what teacher, to what master, to what leader shall we go, if we leave thee? Where are we to find any one like thee? What could we gain by leaving thee?" The question was one which might well be asked, when we remember the state of the Jewish nation, and the universal prevalence of Pharisaism or Sadduceeism. But this is not all. It may always be asked by true Christian men, when tempted to give up Christ's service. True Christianity undoubtedly has its cross. It entails trial and persecution. But to whom shall we go, if we give up Christ? Will Infidelity, Deism, Socinianism, Romanism, Formalism, Rationalism, or Worldliness give us anything better? There is but one answer! They cannot. [Thou hast the words of eternal life.] This would be more literally rendered, "thou hast words of eternal life." "Thou possessest instruction about everlasting life, such as we can hear nowhere else, and such as we find soul-comforting and edifying. The sayings that fall continually from thy lips, about eternal life, are such as we cannot leave." Our Lord's expression should be remembered, "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me." (John 17:8.) v69.—[And we believe and are sure.] This would be more literally rendered, "we have believed and have known." Moreover, the "we" is emphatic.— "Whatever others may please to think, however many may go away and forsake thee, after following thee for a little, it is not so with us. We have believed and known, and do believe and know." [Thou art that Christ, the son of the living God.] This might equally well have been rendered, "Thou art the Christ." The sentence is a noble confession, when we remember the time in which it was made, and the universal unbelief of the leaders of the Jewish nation. We may remember, that it is precisely the same confession that is recorded to have been made by Peter, after our Lord said to him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 16:17.) We must not, however, misunderstand the extent of Peter's confession. He declared his faith that our Lord was the Anointed Messiah, the Son of the living God. The Messiahship and divinity of Christ, were the points on which he and the other apostles laid firm hold. But the sacrifice and death of Christ, and His substitution for us on the cross, were not things which he either saw or understood at present. (See Matthew 16:22-23.) (a.) We should notice, that a man's heart may be right towards God, while he remains very ignorant of some great doctrines of the Christian faith. It certainly was so with Peter and the apostles, at this time. (b.) We should also notice, that there is nothing man is so backward to see, as the sacrifice of the death of Christ, the substitution, and the atonement. It is possible to be right about Christ's divinity and Messiahship, and yet be in the dark about His death. (c.) We should notice how ignorant Christians often are of the state of others' souls. Peter never suspected any one of the twelve to be a false apostle. It is a fearful proof that Judas must have been, in all outward demeanour and profession, just like the rest of the apostles. v70.—[Have not I chosen you twelve?] I do not think that the "choosing" here spoken of, means anything more than selection for office. The word is evidently used in this simple sense, in Luke 6:13,— "Of them he chose twelve, whom he called apostles;" Acts 6:5,— "They chose Stephen, a man full of faith;" Acts 15:22,— "It pleased the apostles,— to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch." I say confidently, that in each one of these cases, the Greek word rendered "chosen," the very same word that is used here, can mean nothing more than "chosen or selected for an office." This I believe, with Poole, Henry, and Hutcheson, is the meaning here. I disagree with Alford's remark, that "the selection of the twelve, was the consequence of the giving of them to Him by the Father," and that Christ's "selecting, and the Father's giving, and the Father's giving and drawing, do not exclude final falling away."— This remark is built on the gratuitous assumption, that Christ's "choosing" here spoken of is the same as that "choosing unto salvation," which is the special privilege of believers. Of that "choosing unto salvation," our Lord speaks in another place, where He carefully draws the distinction between the true disciples and the false:— "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen." (John 13:18.) Of that choosing unto salvation, Judas was not a partaker. Of the other choosing unto office, as in the verse before us, undoubtedly he was a partaker. Burgon, and many others, agree with Alford, and dwell on the expression before us, as an apparent proof, that men "chosen to salvation" may fall away. But their reasoning appears to me inconclusive. Even Quesnel, the Romanist commentator, remarks, "The being duly called to the ecclesiastical office is not sufficient, if a man live not suitably to that holy vocation." Toletus, the Spanish Jesuit, says much the same. [One of you is a devil.] This is a singularly strong expression, and gives an awfully vivid impression of the wickedness of Judas. Of course, he was not literally and really "a devil," but a man. The meaning is, "one out of your number is so completely under the influence of the devil, such a servant of the devil, that he deserves to be called nothing less than a devil." Our Lord, in another place, says of the wicked Jews, "Ye are of your father, the devil." (John 8:44.) So Paul says to Elymas, "Thou child of the devil." (Acts 13:10.) When we read at a later period, "The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, to betray him" (John 13:2), it must mean the final working out of a wicked purpose, which, under the influence of the devil, Judas had long had in his heart. Let us note, that even now, Judas is called "a devil," long before our Lord's betrayal and crucifixion. This helps to show that he never was a faithful disciple, even from the first. Let us note, that the only other expression of our Lord's, which at all approaches the one before us in strength is the one which, on another occasion, our Lord applies to His zealous apostle Peter,— "Get thee behind me, Satan." (Matthew 16:23.) While we condemn the wickedness of Judas, let us not forget that even a true-hearted apostle may so far err and be mistaken, that he needs to be sharply rebuked and called "Satan." A thoroughly bad man is "a devil;" but even a good man may need to be called "Satan"! Rollock observes, that Jesus never used so strong an expression about His open enemies who went about to slay Him. It was a hypocrite and a false apostle, whom he called "a devil." Nothing is so wicked as false profession. v71.—[He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon.] The word "Iscariot," according to some, means "a man of Kerioth." Kerioth was a town of Judah. (Joshua 15:25.)— According to others, it means "a man of lssachar."— According to Lampe, and others, it is a Syriac word, meaning "the bearer of the purse."— We are told that "He had the bag." (John 13:29.) It is remarkable, that John, four times in his Gospel, calls Judas "the son of Simon." We do not exactly know why, unless it is that Simon was a person well-known by name, or that John wished to make it quite clear, that Judas Iscariot was not Jude, the faithful apostle and cousin of Christ, by naming his father. There is no proof whatever, that Judas was the son of "Simon the Canaanite," the apostle; though it is somewhat curious, that in the list of apostles given by Matthew and Mark, Simon and Judas Iscariot are named in close juxta-position. (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18-19.) [He it was that should betray him.] This would be more literally rendered, "He was about to betray Him." The expression seems to imply, that to betray such a master as Christ, was so eminently a work of the devil, that the betrayer ought to be spoken of as "a devil." The frequency of our Lord's warnings and hints, addressed to Judas Iscariot, is very remarkable. Rollock observes, what an awful proof it is of the hardness of the heart, that a man so warned should not be conscience-stricken and repent. (The Preface to this Volume can be found below, after "Notes".) THE chapter we now begin is divided from the preceding one by a wide interval of time. The many miracles which our Lord wrought, while He "walked in Galilee," are passed over by John in comparative silence. The events which he was specially inspired to record are those which took place in or near Jerusalem. We should observe in this passage the desperate hardness and unbelief of human nature. We are told that even our Lord's "brethren did not believe in Him." Holy and harmless and blameless as He was in life, some of his nearest relatives, according to the flesh, did not receive Him as the Messiah. It was bad enough that His own people, "the Jews, sought to kill Him." But it was even worse that "His brethren did not believe." That great Scriptural doctrine, man's need of preventing and converting grace, stands out here, as if written with a sunbeam. It becomes all who question that doctrine to look at this passage and consider. Let them observe that seeing Christ's miracles, hearing Christ's teaching, living in Christ's own company, were not enough to make men believers. The mere possession of spiritual privileges never yet made any one a Christian. All is useless without the effectual and applying work of God the Holy Ghost. No wonder that our Lord said in another place, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." (John 6:44.) The true servants of Christ in every age will do well to remember this. They are often surprised and troubled to find that in religion they stand alone. They are apt to fancy that it must be their own fault that all around them are not converted like themselves. They are ready to blame themselves because their families remain worldly and unbelieving. But let them look at the verse before us. In our Lord Jesus Christ there was no fault either in temper, word, or deed. Yet even Christ's own "brethren did not believe in Him." Our blessed Master has truly learned by experience how to sympathize with all his people who stand alone. This is a thought "full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort." He knows the heart of every isolated believer, and can be touched with the feeling of his trials. He has drunk this bitter cup. He has passed through this fire. Let all who are fainting and cast down, because brothers and sisters despise their religion, turn to Christ for comfort, and pour out their hearts before Him. He "has suffered Himself being tempted" in this way, and He can help as well as feel. (Hebrews 2:18.) We should observe, for another thing, in this passage, one principal reason why many hate Christ. We are told that our Lord said to His unbelieving brethren, "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." These words reveal one of those secret principles which influence men in their treatment of religion. They help to explain that deadly enmity with which many during our Lord's earthly ministry regarded Him and His Gospel. It was not so much the high doctrines which He preached, as the high standard of practice which He proclaimed, which gave offense. It was not even His claim to be received the Messiah which men disliked so much, as His witness against the wickedness of their lives. In short, they could have tolerated His opinions if He would only have spared their sins. The principle, we may be sure, is one of universal application. It is at work now just as much as it was eighteen hundred years ago. The real cause of many people's dislike to the Gospel is the holiness of living which it demands. Teach abstract doctrines only, and few will find any fault. Denounce the fashionable sins of the day, and call on men to repent and walk consistently with God, and thousands at once will be offended. The true reason why many profess to be infidels, and abuse Christianity, is the witness that Christianity bears against their own bad lives.— Like Ahab, they hate it, "because it doth not prophesy good concerning them, but evil." (1 Kings 22:8.) We should observe, lastly, in this passage, the strange variety of opinions about Christ, which were current from the beginning. We are told that "there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay, but he deceiveth the people." The words which old Simeon had spoken thirty years before were here accomplished in a striking manner. He had said to our Lord's mother, "This child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;— that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2:34-35.) In the diversities of opinion about our Lord which arose among the Jews, we see the good old man's saying fulfilled. In the face of such a passage as this, the endless differences and divisions about religion, which we see on all sides, in the present day, ought never to surprise us. The open hatred of some toward Christ,—the carping, fault-finding, prejudiced spirit of others,—the bold confession of the few faithful ones,—the timid, man-fearing temper of the many faithless ones,—the unceasing war of words and strife of tongues with which the Churches of Christ are so sadly familiar,—are only modern symptoms of an old disease. Such is the corruption of human nature, that Christ is the cause of division among men, wherever He is preached. So long as the world stands, some, when they hear of Him, will love, and some will hate,—some will believe, and some will believe not. That deep, prophetical saying of His will be continually verified: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34.) What do we think of Christ ourselves? This is the one question with which we have to do. Let us never be ashamed to be of that little number who believe on Him, hear His voice, follow Him, and confess Him before men. While others waste their time in vain jangling and unprofitable controversy, let us take up the cross and give all diligence to make our calling and election sure. The children of this world may hate us, as it hated our Master, because our religion is a standing witness against them. But the last day will show that we chose wisely, lost nothing, and gained a crown of glory that fadeth not away. ================== Notes— v1.—[After these things Jesus walked in Galilee.] These Words cover a space of about six months. The events of the last chapter took place about the time of the Passover, in spring. The events of the chapter we now begin took place in autumn, at the feast of tabernacles. What our Lord did in Galilee during these six months John passes over in silence. His Gospel, with the exception of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th chapters, is almost entirely taken up with our Lord's doings in or near Jerusalem. He was, at this period of His ministry, entirely absent from Jerusalem, it would seem, for about eighteen months. The expression "walked" must be taken figuratively. It simply means, that our Lord "lived, dwelt, sojourned, was going to and fro, and passing His time." The Greek word is in the imperfect tense, and denotes a continuous action or habit. [He would not walk in Jewry.] This would be more literally rendered, "He did not will, or desire, or choose to walk." The use of the word "Jewry" by our translators is to be regretted, and seems uncalled for. The Greek word so rendered is the same that is rendered "Judæa" in the third verse. (John 7:3.) [Because the Jews sought to kill Him.] By "the Jews" we must understand the leaders and rulers of the Jewish nation. There is no proof that the lower orders felt the same enmity that the upper classes did against our Lord. "The common people heard Him gladly." (Mark 12:37.) The depth and bitterness of this hatred against Christ may be seen in their wish to kill Him. It seems to have been a settled plan with the Jews from the time when the miracle was wrought at the pool of Bethesda. (John 5:16, John 5:18.) They could neither answer Him, nor silence Him, nor prevent the common people listening to Him. They resolved therefore to kill Him. Our Lord's example recorded in this verse shows clearly that Christians are not meant to court martyrdom, or wilfully expose themselves to certain death, under the idea that it is their duty. Many primitive martyrs seem not to have understood this. v2.—[Jews' feast of tabernacles.] This expression, like many others in John's Gospel, shows that he wrote for the Gentiles, who knew little of Jewish customs and feasts. Hence "the Jews' feast." The feast of tabernacles was one of the three great feasts in the Jewish year, when, by God's command, all pious Jews went up to Jerusalem. (Deuteronomy 16:16.) It was held in autumn, after the completion of the harvest, in the seventh month. The time of the Jewish "Passover" answered to our Easter, "Pentecost" to our Whitsuntide, and "Tabernacles" to our Michaelmas. The seventh month was remarkable for the number of ordinances which the law of Moses required the Jews to observe. On the first day was the feast of trumpets, on the tenth day was the day of atonement, and on the fifteenth began the feast of tabernacles. There are several things peculiar to the feast of tabernacles, which ought to be remembered in reading this chapter, because some of them throw light on it. (1) It was occasion of special mirth and rejoicing with the Jews. They were ordered to dwell in booths, or tabernacles made of branches, for seven days, in remembrance of their dwelling in temporary booths when they came out of Egypt, and to "rejoice before the LORD." (Leviticus 23:39-43.) (2) It was a feast at which more sacrifices were offered up than at any of the Jewish feasts. (Numbers 29:12-34.) (3) It was a feast at which, once every seven years, the law was publicly read to the whole people. (4) It was a feast at which water was drawn from the pool of Siloam every day with great solemnity, and poured upon the altar, while the people sung the 12th chapter of Isaiah. (Isaiah 12:1-6.) (5) It was a feast which followed close on the great day of atonement, when the peculiarly typical ordinances of the scapegoat, and the High Priest going once in the year into the holy of holies, were fresh in the minds of the people. These things should be carefully noted, and remembered, as we read through the chapter. Josephus calls the feast of tabernacles "the holiest and greatest feast of the Jews." It was a Rabbinical saying, "The man who has not seen these festivities does not know what a jubilee is." Whether this very year, when our Lord went to the feast of tabernacles, was the precise seventh year in which the public reading of the law took place, we cannot now know for certainty. Whether the custom of dwelling in booths was literally kept up when our Lord was on earth may also be matter of question. It certainly had not been observed for many years in the days of Nehemiah. (Nehemiah 8:17.) But that this feast was kept up with extraordinary festivity and rejoicing in the latter days of the Jewish dispensation is testified by all Jewish writers. It was in the middle of this public rejoicing, and the concourse of Jews from every part of the world, that the things recorded in this chapter took place. It stands to reason that all that our Lord said and did this week must have been more than usually public, and would necessarily attract great attention. Wordsworth, Burgon, and others, consider the feast of tabernacles to have been a very significant type of our Lord's incarnation. I confess that I am unable to see it. If the feast was typical at all, which is not certain, I venture the conjecture, that it was meant to be a type of our Lord's second advent. My reasons are these:— (a.) It was the last in order of the Jewish feasts every year, and formed the completion of the annual routine of Mosaic ordinances. It wound up all. (b.) It was kept at the end of harvest, when the year's work was done, and the fruits were all gathered in. (c.) It was an occasion of special rejoicing and festivity more than any of the feasts. The dwelling in booths seems to have been a circumstance of the feast less essential than the rejoicing. (d.) It followed immediately after the feast of trumpets, and the day of atonement. On that day the High Priest went into the holy of holies and then came out to bless the people. (See Isaiah 27:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:16.) (e.) It followed immediately after the jubilee every fiftieth year. That jubilee, and proclamation of liberty to all, was in the seventh month. (f.) It is that special feast which, after the Jews are restored and Jerusalem rebuilt, the nation are yet to keep in the future kingdom of Christ. (Zechariah 14:16.) I venture this conjecture with much diffidence; but I think it deserves consideration. In the six points I have mentioned, I see much more of the second advent than of the first. To my eyes the feast of passover was a type of Christ crucified;— the feast of pentecost, of Christ sending forth the Holy Ghost in this dispensation;— the feast of tabernacles, of Christ coming again to gather His people in one joyous company, to reap the harvest of the earth, to wind up this dispensation, to come forth and bless His people, and to proclaim a jubilee to all the earth. v3.—[His brethren.] Who these "brethren" were is a matter of dispute. Some think, as Alfort, Stier, and others, that they were literally our Lord's own brethren, and the children of Mary by Joseph, born after our Lord's birth. (See Psalms 69:8.)— Some think, as Theophylact and others, that they were the children of Joseph by a former marriage, and brought up by Mary under the same roof with our Lord.— Others think, as Augustine, Zwingle, Musculus, and Bengel, that the word "brethren" does not necessarily mean more than cousins or kinsmen. (See 1 Chronicles 23:22.) This is the most probable opinion. I take these "brethren" to have been relatives and kinsmen of Joseph and Mary, living at Nazareth, or Capernaum, or elsewhere in Galilee,— who naturally observed all our Lord's doings with interest and curiosity, but at present did not believe on Him. To suppose, as some do, that these brethren were some of our Lord's Apostles, is to my mind a most improbable theory, and flatly contrary to the 5th verse of this chapter. (John 7:5.) If Mary really had sons after the birth of our Lord, it certainly seems strange that our Lord should commend her to the care of John, on the cross, and not to her own sons, His half-brethren. That at the later part of His Ministry He had some "brethren" who were not Apostles, but believed, is clear from Acts 1:14. But whether they were the "brethren" of the text before us, we have no means of ascertaining. [Depart...go into Judæa, that Thy disciples, etc.] This recommendation, as well as the next verse, looks like the advice of men who as yet were not convinced of our Lord's Messiahship. The expression "that Thy disciples may see," seems also to indicate that the speakers were not yet of the number of our Lord's disciples. The language is that of bystanders looking on, waiting to see how the question is to be settled, before they make up their own minds. It is as though they said, "Make haste, rally a party round Thee, show some public proof that Thou art the Christ, and gather adherents." The "works" here mentioned must evidently mean miracles. This speech seems to imply that our Lord had a party of disciples in Judæa and at Jerusalem. Many, it should be remembered, "believed on Him" at the first passover He attended. (John 2:23.) v4.—[For there is no man, etc.] This sentence is a kind of proverbial saying. Every one knows that if a man seeks to be known openly, it is no use to do his work secretly. [If thou do these things, show thyself to the world.] There seems to be a latent sneer about this sentence. "If Thou really art doing miracles to prove Thyself the Messiah, do not continue to hide Thyself here in Galilee. Go up to Jerusalem, and do miracles there." That the speakers said this from an honest zeal for God's glory, and a sincere desire to have our Lord known by others as well as themselves, is a view that I cannot think probable. Some think that the words "if Thou doest," mean "since Thou doest," and see a parallel in Colossians 3:1,—where "if" does not imply any doubt whether the Colossians were "risen with Christ." Lampe thinks it means, "if Thou really and truly, not illusively, doest miracles." The false standard of an unconverted man is very manifest in this and the preceding verse. Such an one has no idea of waiting for man's praise and favor, and being content without it if it does not come. He thinks that a religion should have the praise of the world, and labor to get it. The man of God remembers that true religion does not "cry, nor strive," not court publicity. v5.—[For neither...brethren believe.] These words appear to me to admit of only one meaning. They mean, that these brethren of our Lord had at present no faith at all. They did not yet believe that Jesus was the Christ. They had no grace. They were not converted. The idea of some that the words mean, "His brethren did not fully and entirely believe in Him," seems to me utterly without foundation. It cannot, moreover, be reconciled with the language that soon follows.—"The world cannot hate you," etc. Such language cannot be applied to disciples. The whole teaching of the Bible shows clearly that it was quite possible to be a relative of Christ according to the flesh and yet not be converted. He that does God's will is as dear to Christ as "brother, or sister, or mother." (Mark 3:35.) How frequently even the natural brethren of God's most eminent saints have been graceless and ungodly, every Bible-reader must often have observed. The cases of the brothers of Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and David, will occur to our minds. We should learn from a verse like this the desperate hardness of man's heart, the absolute necessity of grace to make any one a disciple, and the extreme danger of familiarity with high spiritual privileges. We should remember too, that a man may be a truly good and holy man, and yet not have converted relatives. No one can give grace to his own family. "A prophet is not without honor but in his own country." (Mark 6:4.) Even our Lord was not believed by all around Him. He can truly sympathize with all His people who are in a similar position. v6.—[My time is not yet come.] These words must mean that our Lord did everything during His earthly ministry according to a pre-ordained plan, and that He could take no step except in harmony with that plan. He doubtless spoke with a Divine depth of meaning that none but Himself could comprehend, and that must have been unintelligible at the time to His "brethren." To them His words would probably convey nothing more than the idea that for some reason or other He did not think the present a favorable opportunity for going to Jerusalem. [Your time is always ready.] This sentence must mean, that to unconverted people, like our Lord's brethren, it could make no matter what time they went up. All times were alike. They would excite no enmity, and run no risk. A Christian not possessing foreknowledge can only pray for guidance and direction as to the steps of his life, and the ways and times of his actions; and having prayed, then make the best use of his judgment, trusting that a faithful God will not let him make mistakes. v7.—[The world cannot hate you.] These words surely settle the question as to the present state of our Lord's brethren. They were yet unconverted. Our Lord says, in another place,—"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own." (John 15:19.) [Me it hateth because I testify...works...evil.] The true reason of this enmity of many of the Jews against Christ is here distinctly indicated. It was not merely His claims to be received as the Messiah. It was not merely the high and spiritual doctrine He preached. It was rather His constant testimony against the sinful lives and wicked practices of the many in His day. That adultery, covetousness, and hypocrisy were rife and common among the leading Pharisees, is evident from many expressions in the Gospels. It was our Lord's witness against these darling sins that enraged His enemies. The wickedness of human nature is painfully shown in this sentence. Christ was "hated." It is an utter delusion to suppose that there is any innate response to perfect moral purity, or any innate admiration of "the true, the pure, the just, the kind, the good, and the beautiful," in the heart of man. God gave man, 1800 years ago, a perfect pattern of purity, truth, and love, in the person of our Lord while He was upon earth. And yet we are told He was "hated." True Christians must never be surprised if they are "hated" like their Lord. "The disciple is not above his Master."— "Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." (Matthew 10:24; 1 John 3:13.) In fact the more like Christ they are, the more likely to be "hated." Moreover, they must not be cast down and make themselves miserable, under the idea that it is their inconsistencies the world hates, and that if they were more consistent and lovely in life the world would like them better. This is a complete mistake, and a common delusion of the devil. What the world hates about Christians is neither their doctrines, nor their faults, but their holy lives. Their lives are a constant testimony against the world, which makes the men of the world feel uncomfortable, and therefore the world hates them. Let us note, that unpopularity among men is no proof that a Christian is wrong, either in faith or practice. The common notion of many, that it is a good sign of a person's character to be well-spoken of by everybody, is a great error. When we see how our Lord was regarded by the wicked and worldly of His day, we may well conclude that it is a very poor compliment to be told that we are liked by everybody. There can surely be very little "witness" about our lives if even the wicked like us. "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you." (Luke 6:26.) That sentence is too much forgotten. Erasmus used to say, that Luther might have had an easy life, if he had not touched the Pope's crown, and the monks' bellies. Bengel observes, "Those who please all men, at all times, ought deservedly to look on themselves with suspicion." v8.—[Go ye up...this feast.] These words can hardly be called a command. They rather mean, "If you wish to go at once, go, and do not tarry for Me." [I go not up yet...my time is not yet full come.] Here the reason already given and commented on is repeated. Our Lord did not say He would not go to the feast, but Not yet. There was "a time" for all His actions and every step of His Ministry, and that time had not yet fully arrived; or, as the Greek literally means, was not "fulfilled." True Christians should remember that, like their Master on this occasion, they and worldly men cannot well work and act and move together. They will often find it so. Their principles are different. Their reasons and motives of action are different. They will often find that "two cannot walk together except they are agreed." It seems strange that any reasonable person should see difficulty in this passage, as if it threw a color of doubt on our Lord's veracity. Yet Augustine has a Homily on the subject in defense of our Lord. Surely the simplest and most natural view is, that our Lord meant, "I am not going up yet;" and "am not going, at any rate, in the public caravan with yourselves." This is Chrysostom's view and Theophylact's. At an early period Porphyry tried to fasten on our Lord the charge of inconstancy of purpose, out of this passage. An enemy of Christianity must be sadly at a loss for objections, if he can find no better than one founded on this place. v9.—[When...said these words...abode...Galilee.] This means, that He staid at the place where this conversation took place, while His brethren started on their journey to Jerusalem. What place in Galilee we are not told. v10.—[But when...brethren...gone up, then went He.] We are not told what interval there was between our Lord's setting off for Jerusalem, and His brethren's departure. The words before us would seem to indicate that He set off very soon after them. One reason perhaps for our Lord not going with them was His desire to avoid being made a public show by His relatives. They had very likely a carnal desire to call attention to Him, and to rally a party of adherents round Him, for their own worldly ends. To avoid affording any opportunity for this, our Lord would not go in their company. He had not forgotten, no doubt, that in Galilee there was a party who once would fain have "taken Him by force to make Him a king." (John 6:15.) He wished to keep clear of that party. [Not openly, but...in secret.] This probably only means that our Lord did not go in the caravan, or large company of His kinsmen, who according to custom when up together from Galilee, but in a more private manner.— How large the caravans or gatherings of fellow-travelers going up to the three great feasts must have been, we may easily see from the account of our Lord being not missed by Mary and Joseph at first, when He went up to Jerusalem with them at the age of twelve. "Supposing Him to have been in their company, they went a day's journey, and sought Him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance." (Luke 2:44.)— Our Lord never sought publicity but once, and that was when He entered Jerusalem, at the last passover, just before His crucifixion. Then he wanted to draw attention to the great sacrifice He was about to offer up on the cross. The contrast between His conduct on that occasion and the present one is very remarkable. When it says that "He went in secret," it does not necessarily mean that He went alone. There is no reason to suppose that His own chosen Apostles had gone without Him. It only means that He did not go up publicly in the company of all "His kinsfolk and acquaintance" from Galilee. v11.—[Then the Jews sought Him.] If, as usually is the case in John, the "Jews" here mean the rulers and Pharisees, there can be little doubt that they sought Jesus in order to kill Him, as the first verse tells us they wished to do. They naturally concluded that, like all devout Jews, He would come up to Jerusalem to the feast. [Where is He?] Here, as in many other places, the Greek word rendered "he" implies dislike and contempt. It is as if they said, "that fellow" (see Matthew 27:63), "that deceiver." v12.—[There was much murmuring.] As a general rule the Greek word rendered "murmuring" means an under-current of discontent or dislike, not openly expressed. (Thus, Acts 6:1.) But here, and at John 7:32, it does not seem to mean more than muttering, and private conversation, implying only that people were not satisfied about our Lord, and privately talked much to one another about Him. [The people.] The word in the Greek is in the plural, and evidently means the multitude, or crowd of persons who were gathered at Jerusalem on account of the feast, in contradistinction to the rulers who are called "the Jews." [Some...good man: others...deceiveth...people.] These expressions show the feeling of the common people towards our Lord, and are doubtless indicative of the classes from which the two opinions came. The class of simple-minded, true-hearted Israelites, who had sufficient independence to think for themselves, would say of our Lord, "He is a good man." So also would the Galileans, probably, who had seen and heard most of our Lord's ministry. On the other hand, the class of carnal Jews who thought nothing of true religion, and were led like a mob at the beck of the priests and Pharisees, would probably take their cue from the Rulers, and say, "He deceiveth the people," simply because they were told so. Such, probably, was the feeling of the lower orders at Jerusalem. Let it be noted that Christ is, and always has been, the cause of division of opinion, whenever He has come or has been preached. To some He is a savour of "life," and to others of "death." (2 Corinthians 2:16.) He draws out the true character of mankind. They either like Him or dislike Him. Strife and conflict of opinion are the certain consequences of the Gospel really coming among men with power. The fault is not in the Gospel, but in human nature. Stillness and quiet are signs not of life but of death. The sun calls forth miasma and malaria from the swamps it shines upon; but the fault is not in the sun, but in the land. The very same rays call forth fertility and abundance from the corn field. v13.—[Howbeit no man...openly...fear...Jews.] This expression of course applies specially to those who favored our Lord. Those who hated Him would not fear to say so openly. This verse shows the length to which the enmity of the Jewish rulers against our Lord had already gone. It was a notorious fact among the lower orders that the heads of the nation hated Jesus, and that it was a dangerous thing to talk favorably of Him, or to manifest any interest in Him. The fear of man is a powerful principle among most people. Rulers have little idea how many things are secretly talked of sometimes among subjects, and kept back from them. Two hundred years ago, the Stuarts could persecute all open and out-spoken favorers of the English Puritans; but they could not prevent the lower orders secretly talking of them, and imbibing prejudices in their favor. ============================ PREFACE TO SECOND VOLUME.— IN sending forth the second volume of my "Expository Thoughts on John," I have little or nothing to add to the introduction with which I prefaced the first volume. In the general plan of the work,— in the style of expositions, notes, and critical remarks,— in the list of Commentators employed and consulted in preparing the whole, the reader will find little difference between this volume and the one which preceded it. I have rigidly adhered to the line which I marked out to myself at first. In the notes I have gone steadily forward through every verse, endeavoring to throw light on the meaning of every word, evading no difficulty, examining every disputable point, trying to untie every knot, and carefully availing myself of help from every quarter. The doctrinal views of religion to which I gave expression in the first volume, will be found unchanged in the second. The fourteen years which have "passed over" me since I first began writing on the Gospels, I humbly hope have not been thrown away. They have been to me years of many trials, and I may add of much work, much reading, much reflection, and not a little prayer. At the end of these fourteen years, I feel more than ever convinced that what are called "Evangelical" views of Christian truth are thoroughly Scriptural views, and will bear the test of any fair investigation. The longer I live the more firmly am I persuaded that no system of divinity is so entirely in harmony with the Bible, as the system which rightly or wrongly is called "Evangelical." In short, I am not ashamed of saying once more that in matters of doctrine I am an "Evangelical Churchman," and that I am so because I can find no other doctrinal system in the New Testament, when fairly and reasonably interpreted. Let me add, once for all, that nothing so much confirms me in my opinions, as the broad fact that "Evangelical" views are those to which I see men of all schools of opinion turn for comfort when they leave the world. I observe continually that learned and zealous High Churchmen, after denouncing "Evangelicalism" as a defective system for many years, are only too happy to take refuge in simple Evangelical doctrines when they lie on their death-beds. That fact alone speaks volumes. Give me the doctrines that men cling to, and find soul-comforting in the hour of death! I now send forth this volume with an earnest prayer that God may bless it and make it useful. Ignorance of Scripture, I feel more than ever, is the curse of these latter days. Men read many books, and yet neglect "the one Book." If I can help to make the Bible more plain and interesting to any man's soul, I shall be abundantly content. J. C. RYLE. Stradbroke Vicarage, 22d October, 1869. P. S. I hope, if it please God to prolong lite, health, and a moderate degree of leisure, to carry on my work on John without delay. A third volume will complete it. If any one will take the trouble to count all the verses in John's Gospel, he will find that the last nine chapters contain about the same quantity of matter as the first six, and the second six chapters. I have therefore good ground for thinking that the third volume will not exceed in length either of the two which have preceded it. After finishing "Expository Thoughts on the Gospels," I hope to attempt "Expository Thoughts on the Acts of the Apostles." WE learn first in this passage, that honest obedience to God's will is one way to obtain clear spiritual knowledge. Our Lord says, "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." The difficulty of finding out "what is truth" in religion is a common subject of complaint among men. They point to the many differences which prevail among Christians on matters of doctrine, and profess to be unable to decide who is right. In thousands of cases this professed inability to find out truth becomes an excuse for living without any religion at all. The saying of our Lord before us is one that demands the serious attention of persons in this state of mind. It supplies an argument whose edge and point they will find it hard to evade. It teaches that one secret of getting the key of knowledge, is to practice honestly what we know, and that if we conscientiously use the light that we now have, we shall soon find more light coming down into our minds.—In short, there is a sense in which it is true, that by doing we shall come to knowing. There is a mine of truth in this principle. Well would it be for men if they would act upon it. Instead of saying, as some do, "I must first know everything clearly, and then I will act,"—we should say, "I will diligently use such knowledge as I possess, and believe that in the using fresh knowledge will be given to me." How many mysteries this simple plan would solve! How many hard things would soon become plain if men would honestly live up to their light, and "follow on to know the LORD"! (Hosea 6:3.) It should never be forgotten that God deals with us as moral beings, and not as beasts or stones. He loves to encourage us to self-exertion and diligent use of such means as we have in our hands. The plain things in religion are undeniably very many. Let a man honestly attend to them, and he shall be taught the deep things of God. Whatever some may say about their inability to find out truth, you will rarely find one of them who does not know better than he practices. Then if he is sincere, let him begin here at once. Let him humbly use what little knowledge he has got, and God will soon give him more.—"If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." (Matthew 6:22.) We learn, secondly, in this passage, that a self-exalting spirit in ministers of religion is entirely opposed to the mind of Christ. Our Lord says, "He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory; but he that seeketh His glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him." The wisdom and truth of this sentence will be evident at once to any reflecting mind. The minister truly called of God will be deeply sensible of his Master's majesty and his own infirmity, and will see in himself nothing but unworthiness. He, on the other hand, who knows that he is not "inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost," will try to cover over his defects by magnifying himself and his office. The very desire to exalt ourselves is a bad symptom. It is a sure sign of something wrong within. Does any one ask illustrations of the truth before us? He will find them, on the one side, in the Scribes and Pharisees of our Lord's times. If one thing more than another distinguished these unhappy men, it was their desire to get praise for themselves.—He will find them, on the other side, in the character of the Apostle Paul. The keynote that runs through all his Epistles is personal humility and zeal for Christ's glory:— "I am less than the least of all saints— I am not meet to be called an Apostle— I am chief of sinners— we preach not ourselves but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." (Ephesians 3:8; 1 Corinthians 15:9; 1 Timothy 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:5.) Does any one ask for a test by which he may discern the real man of God from the false shepherd in the present day? Let him remember our Lord's weighty words, and notice carefully what is the main object that a minister loves to exalt. Not he who is ever crying, "Behold the Church! behold the Sacraments! behold the ministry!" but he who says,— "Behold the Lamb!"— is the pastor after God's own heart. Happy indeed is that minister who forgets self in his pulpit, and desires to be hid behind the cross. This man shall be blessed in his work, and be a blessing. We learn, lastly, in this passage, the danger of forming a hasty judgment. The Jews at Jerusalem were ready to condemn our Lord as a sinner against the law of Moses, because He had done a miracle of healing on the Sabbath day. They forgot in their blind enmity that the fourth commandment was not meant to prevent works of necessity or works of mercy. A work on the Sabbath our Lord had done, no doubt, but not a work forbidden by the law. And hence they drew down on themselves the rebuke, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." The practical value of the lesson before us is very great. We shall do well to remember it as we travel through life, and to correct our estimate of people and things by the light which it supplies. We are often too ready to be deceived by an appearance of good. We are in danger of rating some men as very good Christians, because of a little outward profession of religion, and a decent Sunday formality,— because, in short, they talk the language of Canaan, and wear the garb of pilgrims. We forget that all is not good that appears good, even as all is not gold that glitters, and that daily practice, choice, tastes, habits, conduct, private character, are the true evidence of what a man is.—In a word, we forget our Lord's saying,— "Judge not according to the appearance." We are too ready, on the other hand, to be deceived by the appearance of evil. We are in danger of setting down some men as no true Christians, because of a few faults or inconsistencies, and "making them offenders because of a word." (Isaiah 29:21.) We must remember that the best of men are but men at their very best, and that the most eminent saints may be overtaken by temptation, and yet be saints at heart after all. We must not hastily suppose that all is evil, where there is an occasional appearance of evil. The holiest man may fall sadly for a time, and yet the grace within him may finally get a victory. Is a man's general character godly?—Then let us suspend our judgment when he falls, and hope on. Let us "judge righteous judgment." In any case let us take care that we pass fair judgment on ourselves. Whatever we think of others, let us beware of making mistakes about our own character. There, at any rate, let us be just, honest, and fair. Let us not flatter ourselves that all is right, because all is apparently right before men. "The LORD," we must remember, "looketh on the heart." (1 Samuel 16:7.) Then let us judge ourselves with righteous judgment, and condemn ourselves while we live, lest we be judged of the Lord and condemned for ever at the last day. (1 Corinthians 11:31.) ================== Notes— v14.—[About...midst of...feast.] This would be about the fourth day of the week, as the feast lasted seven days. Some who consider the feast of tabernacles a type of Christ's incarnation, think this circumstance is typical of our Lord's earthly ministry lasting three years and a half, answering to the three days and a half during which our Lord taught publicly here in Jerusalem. I doubt myself whether the circumstance is typical at all. If the feast of tabernacles is typical, I believe it points to the second advent of Christ much more than to the first. [Jesus went up...temple.] This means the outer court of the temple, where pious Jews were in the habit of assembling in order to hear the doctors of the law and others, and to discuss religious subjects. This is the place where our Lord was, when Joseph and Mary found Him, at twelve years of age, "in the temple." (Luke 2:46.) It was probably a large open court yard, with piazzas or verandas around it, for shelter against heat and cold. [Taught.] What our Lord taught we are not told. Expositions of Scripture, as Luke 4:17-21, and such lessons as those contained in the Sermon on the Mount, and the parables, were most likely the kind of things that He "taught" first, on such occasions as this. It admits of doubt whether He taught such deep things as those contained in the 5th and 6th chapters of John, unless publicly attacked, or put on His defense. Alford thinks that this was "the first time" that our Lord "taught publicly at Jerusalem." Yet this seems at least questionable when we consider the 2nd and 5th chapters of John. v15.—[The Jews marveled.] The wisdom and knowledge of Scripture which our Lord showed must have been the principle cause of wonder. Yet, we may well believe, there was something wonderful in His manner and style of speaking. [How knoweth this man letters?] The word rendered "letters" here, must probably be taken in the sense of "learning." It is so used in Acts 26:24. In John 5:47 it is rendered "writings." In 2 Timothy 3:15 it is "Scriptures." The original idea is a "written character," a letter of an alphabet. It is thus used in Luke 23:38 of the inscription on the cross, written "in letters of Greek," etc. [Having never learned.] The Jews must have meant by this, that our Lord had never attended any of the great theological schools which the scribes and Pharisees kept up in Jerusalem,— to which Paul refers, when he says, He was "brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel." (Acts 22:3.) They did not of course mean that any one brought up at Nazareth must necessarily have been totally ignorant. That our Lord could read and write is clear from Luke 4:16, and John 8:6. But the Jerusalem Jews, in their pride and self-conceit, set down any one as comparatively ignorant who had not been trained in their great metropolitan schools. People are very apt to condemn any one as "ignorant" who disagrees with them in religion. According to Tholuck, it was a rule of the Talmud, "that no man could appear as a teacher, who had not for some years been a colleague of a Rabbi." v16.—[My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent Me.] Our Lord meant by these words, "My doctrine is not mine only. The teaching that I am proclaiming is not a thing of my own private invention, and the product of my own isolated mind. It is the doctrine of my Father who sent me. It deserves attention because it is His message. He that despiseth it, despiseth not only Me, but him whose messenger I am."— The great truth of His own inseparable and mysterious union with God the Father, is here once more pointed at. It is like, "I can of my own self do nothing," (John 5:30,) and "as my Father hath taught me I speak these things," (John 8:28,) and "I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak." (John 12:49.) Some think that our Lord only meant, "The sense of Scripture which I give is not my own, but the sense in which God at first gave it." But this is a very meager view of the sentence, though an Arian or Socinian may like it. Cyril remarks: "In saying that He was sent by the Father, He does not show Himself inferior to the Father. For this mission is not that of a servant, though it might be called so, as he 'took on Him the form of a servant.' But He is 'sent,' as a word is out of the mind, or a sunbeam out of the sun." Augustine remarks: "This sentence undoeth the Sabellian heresy. The Sabellians have dared to say that the Son is the same as the Father: the names two, the reality one. If the names were two, and the reality one, it would not be said, 'My doctrine is not mine.' If Thy doctrine be not Thine, Lord, whose is it, unless there be another whose it may be?" Hengstenberg thinks that our Lord had in view the famous prophesy of Moses in which God says of Messiah,— "I will put my words in His mouth." (Deuteronomy 18:18.) Let us carefully note with what peculiar reverence we should receive and study every word that fell from our Lord's lips. When He spoke, He did not speak His own mind only, as one of His Apostles or prophets did. It was God the Father speaking with and through Him. No wonder when we read such expressions as this that John calls our Lord "the Word." v17.—[If any man will do His will.] The English language here fails to give the full force of the Greek. It is literally, "If any man is willing to do,— has a mind and desire and inclination to do God's will." It is not the simple future of the verb "do." There are two distinct verbs. The stress, therefore, in reading the sentence, must not be laid entirely on "doing" God's will. It is "if any man is willing to do." [He shall know the doctrine.] This means he shall know "concerning and about" the doctrine I am proclaiming. [Whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.] This means "whether the doctrine is from God, as I say it is,— the doctrine of God the Father, which He has commissioned and sent Me to proclaim to man,— or whether I speak from myself, of my own isolated responsibility, without any license or commission." The translation "speak of myself," is unfortunately equivocal. The expression does not mean "about and concerning" myself, but "from" myself. By "doing the will of God," our Lord must mean, "obeying and performing, as far as in us lies, that will of God," which we have expressly declared to us in the Word of God." (17th Article.) Such "doing" He declares is the way of knowledge. It is the same idea as the "doing truth" of John 3:21. The principle here laid down is one of immense importance. We are taught that clear knowledge depends greatly on honest obedience, and that distinct views of Divine truth cannot be expected, unless we try to practice such things as we know. Living up to our light we shall have more light. Striving to do the few things we know, we shall find the eyes of our understanding enlightened, and shall know more. Did the Jews profess to feel perplexed, and not to know whether our Lord was sent from God? Let them honestly do God's will, and seek knowledge in the path of sincere obedience in such matters as were clear and plain.— So doing they would be guided into all truth, and find their doubts removed. We learn from these words how greatly they err who profess to be waiting till their mental difficulties are removed before they become decided Christians. They must change their plan. They must understand that knowledge comes through humble obedience as well as through the intellect. Let them begin by honestly doing God's will as far as they know that will, and in so doing they will find their minds enlightened. We learn, furthermore, that God tests men's sincerity by making obedience part of the process by which religious knowledge is obtained. Are we really willing to do God's will so far as we know it? If we are, God will take care that our knowledge is increased. If we are not willing to do His will, we show clearly that we do not want to be God's servants. Our hearts and not our heads are in fault. We learn, finally, the great principle on which many will be condemned at the last day. They did not live up to their light. They did not use such knowledge as they possessed, and so were left dark and dead in sins. There is probably not one in a thousand among unconverted people, who does not know far better than he practices. Such men surely, if lost, will have none to blame but themselves! In interpreting this verse, I believe we must be careful not to lay more meaning on the expression "do His will," than our Lord meant it to bear. I say this because I observe many respectable commentators place such a very wide and comprehensive sense upon "doing God's will," that they miss entirely our Lord's purpose in speaking the words. They start with saying, that to "do God's will," we must have faith in Christ, new hearts, grace reigning within us, and the like, and thus represent our Lord as saying in effect, "If any man will become a true believer, and a converted man, he shall 'know of the doctrine,' " etc. I venture to think that such interpretation completely misses the mark, and is going round in a circle. Of course any true believer knows true doctrine. I believe that our Lord's object was simply to encourage the honest-minded, sincere, single-eyed inquirer after truth. To such a man, though at present very ignorant, He says, "If you really have a desire to do God's will, to please Him, and to follow any light He gives you, you will be taught of Him, you will find out the truth. My doctrine may be hid from the wise and prudent, but it is revealed to babes." (Matthew 11:25.) I hold, in short, that we should take as simple a view as possible of the sentence, "If any man will do His will," and be very careful that we do not mar its usefulness by putting more meaning on it than our Lord intended. Bishop Hall thus paraphrases the text: "If any man shall, with a simple and honest heart, yield himself over to do the will of my Father, according to the measure of that he knows, God shall encourage and bless that man with further light; so as he shall fully know whether my doctrine be of God, or of myself." Burgon remarks: "The perception of truth depends on the practice of virtue. It is a favourite maxim of the present day, that increased knowledge will bring with it growth in godliness. Scripture at all events entirely reverses the process. The way to know of the doctrine whether it be of God, is to do His will." (See John 5:44; John 8:12.) Hengstenberg remarks: "Whosoever would lead souls to Christ, should not tarry long about the specious arguments with which the natural man seeks to disguise the hateful perversion of his state of will, but should above all things try to excite willingness to do the will of God." v18.—[He that speaketh of himself, etc.] In this verse, as in the preceding verses, "He that speaketh of himself" would be more literally rendered "speaketh from himself." The verse contains a general principle, applicable not only to our Lord's own case, but to teachers of religion in every age. The meaning seems to be as follows:— "He that undertakes on his own responsibility, and without being sent by God, to speak to men about religion, will naturally seek to advance his own importance, and get honor for himself. Speaking from himself, he will speak for himself, and try to exalt himself. He, on the contrary, who is a true messenger of God, and in whom there is no dishonesty or unrighteousness, will always seek first the glory of the God who sent him." In short, it is one mark of a man being a true servant of God, and really commissioned by our Father in heaven, that he ever seeks his Master's glory more than his own. The principle here laid down is a very valuable one. By it we may test the pretensions of many false teachers of religion, and prove them to be unsound guides. There is a curious tendency in every system of heresy, or unsound religion, to make its ministers magnify themselves, their authority, their importance, and their office. It may be seen in Romanism and Brahminism to a remarkable extent. Alford's remark, however, is very true: that in the highest and strictest sense, "the latter part of the sentence is only true of the Holy One Himself, and that owing to human infirmity, purity of motive is no sure guarantee for correctness of doctrine;" and therefore in the end of the verse it is not said, "he who seeketh God's glory," but "he who seeketh His glory that sent him,"— specially indicating Christ Himself. Burgon thinks that "true" is a word used intentionally, in contrast with the expression, "He deceiveth the people." v19.—[Did not Moses give you the law?] Our Lord here appeals to the well-known reverence with which all Jews regarded Moses and the law. But it is highly probable that He had in view the practice of publicly reading the law of Moses to the people during the seven days of the feast of tabernacles, which was observed once in every seven years at that feast. (Deuteronomy 31:10-11.) If, as is possible, this was one of the seventh years in which the law was so read, there would be a singular significance and aptness in His appeal. "This very day you have been hearing that law, which you profess to honor so much. But do you honor it in your lives?" [None of you keepeth the law, etc.] This would be more literally rendered, "none of you doeth the law." It is the same word that is used in the expression, "if any man will do His will," (John 7:17.) The meaning seems to be, "You reject me and my doctrine, and profess to be zealous for the honor of Moses and the law. And yet none of you really obey the law in heart and in spirit. for instance: why do you seek to kill Me? You are full of hatred of Me, and want to put Me to death unjustly, in the face of the sixth commandment. This is not keeping the law." The Greek word rendered "go about," is the same that is rendered "seek" in verse 1 of this chapter (John 7:1,) and John 5:16, John 5:18. v20.—[The people answered and said, etc.] It seems probable that those who said this were the common people, the multitude of Jews gathered from all parts of the world, to many of whom our Lord was a stranger. We can hardly suppose that the rulers and leaders of Jerusalem would have spoken in this way. The expression "Thou hast a devil," may possibly be a repetition of the old charge, that our Lord wrought His miracles by Beelzebub, and was in league with the devil, as John 8:48. In that sense it would be the strongest form of reproach, blasphemy, and contempt. But considering who the speakers were, it is more likely that it simply means, "Thou art beside Thyself, and mad." (So John 10:20.) The expression, "who goeth about to kill Thee," can easily be understood, if we suppose the speakers to be the common people, and not the rulers. The common people probably knew nothing about the intention of the rulers to put Jesus to death, and would think Him beside himself to say that any one wanted to kill Him. v21.—[Jesus answered...I have done one work.] Our Lord can only refer here to the miracle He had wrought on a former occasion at the pool of Bethesda. (John 5:1-9.) This was at present the only great miracle that had been publicly performed in Jerusalem: and from its having led to our Lord being brought before the Sanhedrim, or great Council of the Jews, and to His defense made before them, it would be a miracle that all would know. [Ye all marvel.] This strong present tense seems to mean, "Ye are all still wondering," not only at the greatness of the miracle, but also at my working it on the Sabbath day. Schleusner maintains that the Greek word rendered "marvel" means here, "Ye are indignant, ye take amiss." He thinks the word is used in this sense in Mark 6:6, John 5:28, and Galatians 1:6. v22.—[Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision.] There is a difficulty in this verse in the expression we translate "therefore." It is literally, "on this account,— for this reason,— on account of this." It is not easy to say how the expression comes in, and with what it is connected. (1) Some, as Theophylact, Beza, Poole, Whitby, Hammond, Maldonatus, Pearce, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Olshausen, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, and Stier, propose to alter the stopping, and to connect it with the end of the preceding verse,— "Ye all marvel because of this one work." (Compare Mark 6:6.) But it is doubtful whether the Greek language will fairly admit this.— (2) Some would connect "therefore" with "are ye angry," in the following verse:— "Are you really angry with me on account of this one work, when you yourselves break the Sabbath, in a sense, by circumcising on the Sabbath day?"— But this connection seems very distant indeed.— (3) Some, as Grotius, Calovius, Jansenius, and Webster, think the expression altogether elliptical, and would fill up the sense after "therefore," by supposing some such connection as this:— "On account of this work and your anger at it, let me remind you of your own practice about circumcision." (See Matthew 18:22; Matthew 12:30; Luke 12:22.)— (4) Some, as Chemnitius, Musculus and De Dieu, interpret "therefore" as "because," and make the sentence mean, "Because Moses gave you circumcision, you circumcise a man on the Sabbath day," etc. But it seems a violent strain to make the Greek word we render "therefore" mean "because."— (5) Some, finally, as Alford, Burgon, Barradius, Toletus, and Lyranus, would connect "therefore" with the middle of this verse, and would have it mean, "For this reason Moses gave you circumcision, viz., not because it was an ordinance appointed first by him, but because it was given to the Fathers,"—i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This last is perhaps as tenable a view as any. But it is undeniably a difficulty, and must remain so. Adopting this view, the whole verse must be paraphrased as follows:— "Moses, whose name and law you highly reverence, gave you among other things the ordinance of circumcision. He gave it, remember, for this reason: because it was an old ordinance, handed down to him by your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not an ordinance first communicated to him like the Levitical law. Now you, in obedience to the ordinance of circumcision, which ought to be administered on the eighth day after a child's birth, think it no breach of the fourth commandment to circumcise a child on the Sabbath day. In fact, you postpone the law of the Sabbath to the law of circumcision. You admit that a work of piety and necessity may be done on the Sabbath day. You admit that the fourth commandment which was given on Mount Sinai was not so important as the older law of circumcision." Burgon shows that "therefore" is used just in the same way as here, at the beginning of a sentence, and pointing forward, in John 5:16, John 5:18; John 8:47; John 10:17; John 12:18, John 12:39. We should note how here, as elsewhere, our Lord refers to Moses as a real person, and to the Old Testament history as real true history. v23.—[If a man, etc.] The argument in this verse is as follows:— "Even among yourselves you circumcise a child on the Sabbath day, when it happens to be the eighth day after his birth, in order that the law of circumcision, which your great lawgiver, Moses, sanctioned and re-ordained, should not be broken. You thus admit the whole principle that there is some work which may be done on the Sabbath day. Is it then just and fair to be angry with Me, because I have done a far greater work to a man on the Sabbath, than the work of circumcision? I have not wounded his body by circumcision, but made him perfectly whole. I have not done a purifying work to one particular part of him, but have restored his whole body to health and strength. I have not done a work of necessity to one single member only, but a work of necessity and benefit to the whole man." I cannot see any ground for the idea suggested by Alford, that our Lord implies in this verse, that the law of the Sabbath is a mere Judaical practice and comparatively a modern ordinance, and that as such it properly gave way to the older and higher law of circumcision, which was "of the Fathers."— It might be replied, firstly, that the Sabbath is so far from being a Judaical institution, that it is actually older than circumcision, and was appointed in Paradise.— It might be replied, secondly, that our Lord seems purposely to guard against the idea by speaking of circumcision as "given by Moses," and as a part of "the law of Moses." In fact, He does this twice with such curious particularity, that one might think He meant to guard against any one wresting this passage into an argument against the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath day. He is pleased for the occasion to speak both of circumcision and the Sabbath as part of "the law of Moses." He did this purposely, because the minds of His hearers were full of Moses and the law at this particular period. And His argument amounts to this,— that if they themselves allowed the Mosaic law of the Sabbath must give way in a case of necessity to the Mosaic law of circumcision, they admitted that some works might be done on the Sabbath day; and therefore His work of healing an entire man on the Sabbath day could not be condemned as sinful. The marginal reading, "without breaking the law of Moses," instead of, "that the law of Moses should not be broken," appears to me inadmissible and unnecessary. It is inadmissible, because it is a forced and unnatural interpretation of the Greek words. It is unnecessary, because our Lord is evidently speaking of circumcision as part of "the law of Moses." The idea of some commentators, as Trapp, Rollock, Hutcheson, Beza, and Stier, that "every whit whole" means "wholeness" of soul as well as body, and implies conversion of heart as well as restoration to entire health and strength of the physical man, appears to me unlikely and far-fetched. It is a pious thought, but not apparently in our Lord's mind. Moreover, it is not quite certain that the man healed at Bethesda was healed in soul as well as body. There is no clear proof of it. v24.—[Judge not according to the appearance, etc.] The sense of this verse must be sought in connection with the subject of which our Lord has just been speaking. The Jews had condemned our Lord and denounced Him as a sinner against the fourth commandment, because He had done a work on the Sabbath day. Our Lord refers to this, and says,— "Judge not the deed I did according to the appearance. I did a work on the Sabbath unquestionably. But what kind of a work was it? It was an act of necessity and mercy, and therefore an act as lawful to be done as circumcision, which you yourselves perform on the Sabbath day. In appearance the Sabbath was broken. In reality it was not broken at all. Judge fair and just and righteous judgment. Do not hastily condemn an action, such as this, without looking below the surface." There is perhaps a reference here to Isaiah's prophecy about Messiah, "He shall not judge after the sight of His eyes." (Isaiah 11:3.) The principle here laid down is one of vast importance. Nothing is so common as to judge too favourably or too unfavourably of characters and actions, from merely looking at the outward appearance of things. We are apt to form hasty opinions of others, either for good or evil, on very insufficient grounds. We pronounce some men to be good and others to be bad,— some to be godly and others to be ungodly, without anything but appearance to aid our decision. We should do well to remember our blindness, and to keep in mind this text. The bad are not always so bad, nor the good so good as they appear. A potsherd may be covered over with gilding, and look bright outside. A nugget of gold may be covered with dirt, and look worthless rubbish. One man's work may look good at first, and yet turn out, by and by, to have been done from the basest motives. Another man's work may look very questionable at first, and yet at last may prove Christ-like and truly godly. From rashly "judging by appearances" may the Lord deliver us! Whether our Lord meant "judge not persons," or "judge not actions," according to appearance, is a point on which commentators do not agree. If we take the application to be to "persons," the sentence means, "Do not hastily suppose that Moses and I are at variance, and that, therefore, I must be wrong, because Moses, the great lawgiver, must be right." But it seems far simpler and more natural to apply the expression to "actions,"— "Judge not the thing done by the appearance only. Look below the surface and weigh it justly." WE see in these verses, the obstinate blindness of the unbelieving Jews. We find them defending their denial of our Lord's Messiahship, by saying, "We know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is." And yet in both these assertions they were wrong! They were wrong in saying that they "knew whence our Lord came." They meant no doubt to say that He was born at Nazareth, and belonged to Nazareth, and was therefore a Galilean. Yet the fact was, that our Lord was born at Bethlehem, that He belonged legally to the tribe of Judah, and that His mother and Joseph were of the house and lineage of David. It is incredible to suppose that the Jews could not have found this out, if they had honestly searched and inquired. It is notorious that pedigrees, genealogies, and family histories were most carefully kept by the Jewish nation. Their ignorance was without excuse. They were wrong again in saying that "no man was to know whence Christ came." There was a well-known prophecy, with which their whole nation was familiar, that Christ was to come out of the town of Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:5; John 7:42.) It is absurd to suppose that they had forgotten this prophecy. But apparently they found it inconvenient to remember it on this occasion. Men's memories are often sadly dependent on their wills. The Apostle Peter, in a certain place, speaks of some as "willingly ignorant." (2 Peter 3:5.) He had good reason to use the expression. It is a sore spiritual disease, and one most painfully common among men. There are thousands in the present day just as blind in their way as the Jews. They shut their eyes against the plainest facts and doctrines of Christianity. They pretend to say that they do not understand, and cannot therefore believe the things that we press on their attention, as needful to salvation. But, alas, in nineteen cases out of twenty it is a willful ignorance! They do not believe what they do not like to believe. They will neither read, nor listen, nor search, nor think, nor inquire honestly after truth. Can any one wonder if such persons are ignorant? Faithful and true is that old proverb,—"There are none so blind as those who will not see." We see, for another thing, in these verses, the overruling hand of God over all His enemies. We find that the unbelieving Jews "Sought to take our Lord: but no man laid hands on Him, because his hour was not yet come." They had the will to hurt him, but by an invisible restraint from above, they had not the power. There is a mine of deep truth in the words before us, which deserves close attention. They show us plainly that all our Lord's sufferings were undergone voluntarily, and of His own free will. He did not go to the cross because He could not help it. He did not die because He could not prevent His death. Neither Jew nor Gentile, Pharisee nor Sadducee, Annas nor Caiaphas, Herod nor Pontius Pilate, could have injured our Lord, except power had been given them from above. All that they did was done under control, and by permission. The crucifixion was part of the eternal counsels of the Trinity. The passion of our Lord could not begin until the very hour which God had appointed. This is a great mystery. But it is a truth. The servants of Christ in every age should treasure up the doctrine before us, and remember it in time of need. It is "full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons." Let such never forget that they live in a world where God overrules all times and events, and where nothing can happen but by God's permission. The very hairs of their heads are all numbered. Sorrow and sickness, and poverty, and persecution, can never touch them, unless God sees fit. They may boldly say to every cross,—"Thou couldst have no power against me, except it were given thee from above." Then let them work on confidently. They are immortal, till their work is done. Let them suffer patiently, if needs be that they suffer. Their "times are in God's hand." (Psalms 31:15.) That hand guides and governs all things here below, and makes no mistakes. We see lastly, in these verses, the miserable end to which unbelievers may one day come. We find our Lord saying to His enemies,—"Ye shall seek Me, and shall not find Me; and where I am thither ye cannot come." We can hardly doubt that these words were meant to have a prophetical sense. Whether our Lord had in view individual cases of unbelief among His hearers, or whether He looked forward to the national remorse which many would feel too late in the final siege of Jerusalem, are points which we cannot perhaps decide. But that many Jews did remember Christ's sayings long after He had ascended into heaven, and did in a way seek Him and wish for Him when it was too late, we may be very sure. It is far too much forgotten that there is such a thing as finding out truth too late. There may be convictions of sin, discoveries of our own folly, desires after peace, anxieties about heaven, fears of hell,— but all too late. The teaching of Scripture on this point is clear and express. It is written in Proverbs,—"Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me." (Proverbs 1:28.) It is written of the foolish virgins in the parable, that when they found the door shut, they knocked in vain, saying, "Lord, Lord, open to us." (Matthew 25:11.) Awful as it may seem, it is possible, by continually resisting light and warnings, to sin away our own souls. It sounds terrible, but it is true. Let us take heed to ourselves lest we sin after the example of the unbelieving Jews, and never seek the Lord Jesus as a Savior till it is too late. The door of mercy is still open. The throne of grace is still waiting for us. Let us give diligence to make sure our interest in Christ, while it is called to-day. Better never have been born than hear the Son of God say at last, "Where I am, thither ye cannot come." ================== Notes— v25.—[Then said some of...Jerusalem, etc.] It is likely that these speakers were some of the lower orders who lived at Jerusalem, and knew what the rulers wanted to do to our Lord. They can hardly be the same as "the people" at John 7:20. They, being probably strangers to the plans of the priests and Pharisees, said, "Who goeth about to kill Thee?" These, on the other hand, say, "Is not this He whom they seek to kill?" v26.—[But, lo, He speaketh boldly, and they say nothing, etc.] There appears to have been a restraining power put on our Lord's enemies at this juncture. (See John 7:30.) It certainly seems to have struck the people before us as a remarkable thing, that our Lord should speak out so boldly, openly, and publicly, and yet no effort be made by the rulers to apprehend Him and stop His teaching. No wonder that they asked the question which immediately follows: "Have our rulers changed their mind? Are they convinced at last? Have they really found out that this is truly the Messiah, the Christ of God?" The Greek words would be more literally rendered, "Have the rulers truly learned that this man is truly the Christ?" v27.—[Howbeit we know this man whence He is.] This means that they knew that our Lord was from Nazareth of Galilee. This, we must remember, was the universal belief of all the Jews. When our Lord rode into Jerusalem, just before His crucifixion, the multitude said, "This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." (Matthew 21:11.) When an inscription was put over His head on the cross, in the letters of the three languages, it was, "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews." (John 19:19. See also Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22.) Yet we know all this time that the Jews were mistaken, and that our Lord was in reality born at Bethlehem, according to prophecy. (Micah 5:2.) We can hardly doubt that the Jews might have found out this if they had taken the pains to inquire narrowly into the early history of our Lord's life. In a nation so strict about pedigrees and birth places, such a thing could not be hid. But it seems as if they would not take pains to inquire, and satisfied themselves with the common story of His origin, as it gave them an additional excuse for not receiving Him as the Messiah. The entire ignorance which appears to have prevailed among the Jews, about all the circumstances of our Lord's miraculous conception, and His birth at Bethlehem, is certainly rather remarkable. Yet it should be remembered that thirty years had passed away between our Lords birth and His public ministry,— that His mother and Joseph were evidently in a very humble position and might easily be overlooked, as well as all that happened to them,— and that living quietly at Nazareth, their journey to Bethlehem at the time of "the taxing" would soon be forgotten by others. After all we must not forget that it is part of God's dealings with man, not to force conviction and belief on any one. The obscurity purposely left over our Lord's birth place was a part of the moral probation of the Jewish nation. If, in their pride and indolence and self-righteousness, they would not receive the abundant evidence which our Lord gave of His Messiahship, it could not be expected that God would make unbelief impossible, by placing His birth of a virgin at Bethlehem beyond the reach of doubt. In this, as in everything else, if the Jews had honestly desired to find out the truth, they might have found it. [When Christ cometh, no man knoweth, etc.] It is rather difficult to see what the Jews meant by these words. Most writers think that they referred to the mysterious language of Isaiah about Messiah,— "Who shall declare His generation;" (Isaiah 53:8;) or to Micah's words,— "Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting;" (Micah 5:2;) and that they had in view the Divine and heavenly origin of Messiah, which all Jews allowed would be a mystery. Yet it is hard to understand why they did not say, "When Christ cometh, He shall be born in Bethlehem," and why they should be supposed to speak of our Lord's earthly origin in the beginning of the verse, and of Messiah's Divine origin in the end. There seems no explanation except to suppose that these speakers were singularly ignorant Jews, who did not know that Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem, and only knew that His birth was to be a mysterious thing. This is a possible view, if not a very probable one.— The argument of the speakers before us would then be as follows:— "When Messiah comes, He is to come suddenly, as Malachi foretold, saying, 'the Lord shall suddenly come to His temple,' (Malachi 3:1,) unexpectedly, mysteriously, and taking people by surprise. This man therefore, who is sitting in the temple among us, cannot be the Messiah, because we know that He came from Nazareth in Galilee, and has been living there for more than thirty years."— The prophecy about Messiah being born at Bethlehem, they conveniently dropped out of sight, and in fact never dreamed that it was fulfilled by our Lord. The only prophecy they chose to look at was the one in Malachi (Malachi 3:1,) and as the Lord did not appear to fulfill that, they concluded that He could not be the Christ. In religious matters people are easily satisfied with very imperfect and superficial reasoning, when they want to be satisfied and to be spared further trouble. Men never want reasons to confirm their will. This seems to have been the case with the Jews. Rupertus mentions a common tradition of the Jews,— that when Christ came, He would come at midnight, as the angel came at midnight when the first-born were destroyed in Egypt, and he thinks it may have been in their minds here. Hutcheson observes that "not comparing of Scripture with Scripture, but taking any single sentence that seems to plead for that we would be at, is a very great nursery and cause of error. Such is the Jews' reasoning here. They catch at one thing, speaking of Messiah's Divinity, and take no notice of other places." Besser quotes a saying of Luther's: "The Jews are poor scholars. They have caught the sound of the prophet's clock, (Micah 5:2,) but they have not noted the stroke aright. He who does not hear well, imagines well. They heard that Christ was so to come, that none should know whence He came. But they understood not right, that coming from God He was to be born of a virgin, and come secretly into the world." v28.—[Then cried Jesus...temple...taught.] This is a remarkable expression. We find our Lord departing from His usual practice, when we read that He "cried," or raised His voice to a high pitch. Generally speaking the words in Matthew apply strictly, quoted from Isaiah 42:2,— "He shall not strive nor cry, neither shall any man hear His voice in the street." (Matthew 12:19.) Yet we see there were occasions when He did see it right to cry aloud and lift up His voice, and this is one. The perverse ignorance of the Jews, their persistence in blindness to all evidence, and the great opportunity afforded by the crowds around Him in the temple courts, were probably reasons why he "cried." Our Lord is only said to have "cried" or lifted up His voice in four other passages in the Gospels:— viz., Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; John 7:37, and John 12:44. The Greek for "cried" in Matthew 27:46 is even a stronger word than that before us. [Ye both know me, and...whence I am.] This is an undeniably difficult expression; partly because it is hard to reconcile with John 8:14, and partly because it is not clear how the Jews could be said to "know our Lord" and "whence He was." The explanations suggested are various. (1) Some, as Grotius, Lampe, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Tittman, and A. Clarke, would have the sentence read as a question:— "Do you both know Me, and do ye know whence I am? Are you quite sure that you are correct in saying this?"— In this view it would be rather like the mode of expression used by our Lord in John 16:31,— "Do ye now believe?" where the interrogative forms the beginning of the sentence. (2) Some, as Calvin, Ecolampadius, Beza, Flacius, Gualter, Rollock, Toletus, Glassius, Olshausen, Tholuck, Stier, and Webster, think that the sentence is spoken ironically:— "Truly you do know me and whence I am, and poor miserable knowledge it is, worth nothing at all."— Bengel and others object to this view, that our Lord never spoke ironically. Yet it would be hard to show that there is no irony in John 10:32, if not in Matthew 26:45, and Mark 7:9. (3) Some think, as Chrysostom, Cocceius, Jansenius, Diodati, Bengel, Henry, Burkitt, Hengstenberg, Alford, Wordsworth, and Burgon, that the sentence is a simple affirmation:— "It is true that you know me and whence I am. I grant that in a certain sense you are right. You know where I have been brought up, and who my relatives according to the flesh are. And yet in reality you know very little of me. Of my Divine nature and my unity with my Father ye know nothing at all."— On the whole I prefer this last view to either of the other two. [And I am not come of myself, etc.] This sentence and the rest of the verse are evidently elliptical, and must be paraphrased to give a full idea of the sense:— "And yet ye do not really and thoroughly know me; for I am not come of myself, independent of God the Father, and without commission, but sent by the Father into the world. And He that sent me has proved Himself true to His promises by sending me, and is indeed a real true Person, the true and faithful God of Israel, whom ye, with all your profession, do not know." Here too, as elsewhere, our Lord's expression, "not come of myself," points directly to that intimate union between Himself and God the Father, which is so constantly referred to in the Gospel of John. Here too, as elsewhere, our Lord charges on the unbelieving Jews ignorance of the God whom they professed to serve, and for whose honor they professed to be jealous. With all their boasted zeal for true religion and the true God, they did not really know God. The word "true," here, is of doubtful interpretation. It means "truthful," according to Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Lampe, Tholuck. But it is not clear that this is so. Alford maintains that it must mean "really existent." Trench takes the same view in his "New Testament Synonyms." v29.—[But I know him, etc.] The knowledge of which our Lord here speaks, is that peculiar and intimate knowledge which is necessarily implied in the unity of the three Persons of the Trinity, in the Godhead. There is a high and deep sense in which the Son knows the Father, and the Father knows the Son, which we cannot pretend to explain, because it is far above our capacities. (John 10:15.) The Jews knew nothing rightly of God the Father. Jesus, on the contrary, could say, "I know him," as no one else could. "Neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." (Matthew 11:27.) The expression "I am from Him," must not be confined and cramped down to mean only that our Lord had come like any prophet of old, with a message and commission from God. It declares the relationship between God the Father and God the Son: "I am from Him by eternal generation,— always one with Him,— always equal with Him,— but always a distinct person;— always the only-begotten Son,— always from Him." The expression "He hath sent me," is like the preceding one, something far more than the mere assertion of a prophet's commission. It is a declaration that He was the Sent One,— the Messiah, the Prophet greater than Moses, whom the Father had always promised to send:— "I am the Seed of the woman sent to bruise the serpent's head. I am He whom the Father covenanted and engaged to send for the redemption of a lost world. I am He whom the Father hath sent to be the Saviour of lost man. I proclaim myself the Sent One,— the Christ of God." Bishop Hall paraphrases the two verses thus: "Ye mutter secretly that ye know me, and the place of my birth and parentage; but ye are utterly mistaken, for I have a Father in heaven whom ye know not. I came not of myself, but my Father is He that sent me, who is the God of truth; of whom ye, after all your pretences of knowledge, are utterly ignorant. But I do perfectly know Him, as I have good reason; for both I am from Him by eternal generation, and am by Him sent into the world to do the great work of redemption." v30.—[Then they sought to take him.] This last declaration seems to have raised the anger of the Jerusalem multitude, who were listening to our Lord. With the characteristic keenness of all Jews they at once detected in our Lord's language a claim to be received as the Messiah. Just as on a former occasion, they saw, in His "calling God His Father," that He "made Himself equal with God," (John 5:18,( so here in His saying "I am from Him: He hath sent me," they saw an assertion of His right to be received as Messiah. [But no man...hour not yet come.] This restraint on our Lord's enemies can only be accounted for by direct Divine interposition. It is like John 8:20, and John 18:6. It is clear that they could do nothing against Him except by God's permission, and when God, in His wisdom, was pleased to let it be done. Our Lord did not fall into His enemies' hands through inability to escape, but because the "hour had come," when He voluntarily undertook to die as a substitute. The doctrine before us, let us note, is full of comfort to God's people. Nothing can hurt them except and until God permits. We are all immortal till our work is done. To realize that nothing happens in this world except by the eternal counsels of our Father, and according to His eternal plans, is one grand secret of living a calm, peaceful, and contented life. Besser quotes a saying of Luther's: "God has appointed a nice, easy hour, for everything; and that hour has the whole world for its enemy: it must attack it. The devil shoots and throws at the poor clock-hand, but in vain: for all depends on the hour. Till the hour comes, and the hand has run its course, the devil and the world shall accomplish nothing." v31.—[Many of the people.] This means the common people— the lower orders, in contradistinction to the Pharisees and chief priests. [Believed on Him.] There seems no reason to think that this was not a true faith, so far as it went. But it would not be safe perhaps to conclude that it was more than a general belief that our Lord must be the Messiah, the Christ, and that He deserved to be received as such. [When Christ cometh...more miracles...done.] This language must clearly have been used by people who were familiar with many of our Lord's miracles wrought in Galilee, and knew a good deal about His ministry. So few miracles probably had been wrought as yet in and round Jerusalem, that the language would hardly be used by Jerusalem people. The word "more" probably means not only more in number, but "greater" in character. The question raised by these people was a fair and reasonable one:— "What greater evidence could any one give that He is the Christ, than this man has given? He could not work greater miracles, even if He worked more numerous ones. What then are we waiting for? Why should we not acknowledge this man as the Christ?" v32.—[The Pharisees heard that the people murmured...him.] This would be more literally translated, "The Pharisees heard the people murmuring:" they actually heard with their own ears the common people, as they walked about the temple courts, and gathered in the streets of Jerusalem, at the crowded time of the feast, keeping up their under conversation about our Lord. Here, as at John 7:12, the word we render "murmuring" does not necessarily imply any finding fault, but only a dissatisfied and restless state of mind, which found vent in much conversation and whispering among the people. [And the Pharisees...sent officers to take Him.] It would seem that the talk and stir of men's minds about our Lord so alarmed and irritated the rulers of the Jews, that they resolved even now in the midst of the feast to arrest Him, and so stop His preaching. What day of the feast this was, and what interval elapsed between this verse and John 7:37, where we are told of "the last day" of the feast, we are not told. It seems probable that the officers sought an opportunity for taking our Lord, but could find none,— partly because of the crowds that surrounded Him, and partly because of a Divine restraint laid upon them; and that this was the state of things for three days at least. Full well did these Pharisees justify our Lord's character of them in another place: "Ye neither go in yourselves into the kingdom: neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." (Matthew 23:13.) v33.—[Then said Jesus unto them.] The officers of the Pharisees and their supporters seem clearly to be the persons whom our Lord here addresses. Not only were they, through Divine restraint, unable to lay hands on Him, but they were obliged to stand by and listen to Him. They dared not seize Him for fear of the people, and yet dared not go away to report their inability to carry out their orders. [Yet a little while, etc.] There is probably an under-tone of sadness and tenderness about this and the following sentences. It is as though our Lord said, "Ye have come to lay hands on me, and yet ye might well bear with me. I am only a little time longer with you, and then, when my time is come for leaving the world, I shall go back to my Father who sent me." Or else it must mean, "Ye are sent to lay hands on me, but it is useless at present; Ye cannot do it: because my hour is not yet come. I have yet a little longer time to minister on earth; and then, and not till then, I go to Him that sent me." Alford takes this view. The Jews of course could not understand whom our Lord meant by "Him that sent me," and this saying must necessarily have seemed dark and mysterious to them. v34.—[Ye shall seek me...shall not find me.] These words seem addressed both to the officers and to those who sent them,— to the whole body, in fact, of our Lord's unbelieving enemies:— "A day will come too late, when you will anxiously seek me, and bitterly lament your rejection of me, but too late. The day of your visitation will be past and gone, and you will not find me." There is a great Bible truth taught here, as elsewhere, which is far too much overlooked by many,— I mean the possibility of men seeking salvation when it is too late, and crying for pardon and heaven when the door is shut for ever. Men may find out their folly and be filled with remorse for their sins, and yet feel that they cannot repent. No doubt true repentance is never too late; but late repentance is seldom true. Pharaoh, King Saul, and Judas Iscariot, could all say, "I have sinned." Hell itself is truth known too late. God is unspeakably merciful, no doubt. But there is a limit even to God's mercy. He can be angry, and may be provoked to leave men alone. People should often study Proverbs 1:24-31; Job 27:9; Isaiah 1:15; Jeremiah 11:11; Jeremiah 14:12; Ezekiel 8:18; Hosea 5:6; Micah 3:4; Zechariah 7:13; Matthew 25:11-12. These words very possibly received a most awful fulfillment during the siege of Jerusalem, forty years after they were spoken. So think Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius. But they were probably found true by many of our Lord's hearers long before that time. Their eyes were opened to see their folly and sin, after our Lord had left the world. Burgon remarks, that to this very day the Jews are in a sense seeking the Messiah, and yet not finding Him. [Where I am, thither ye cannot come.] The place our Lord speaks of here is evidently heaven. Some have thought, as Bengel, that the words, "where I am," should be translated, "where I go." But it is neither a natural nor usual sense to put on the words. Nor is it necessary. There was a sense in which the Son of God could say with perfect truth, "Where I am, thither ye cannot come." As God, he never ceased to be in heaven, even when He was fulfilling His ministry on earth during His incarnation. As God, He could truly say, "where I am," and not merely where "I was," or where "I shall be." It is like John 3:13, where our Lord speaking to Nicodemus, calls Himself the "Son of man which IS in heaven." The expression is one of the many texts proving our Lord's divinity. No mere man speaking on earth could speak of heaven as a place "where I am." Augustine strongly maintains this view. [Ye cannot come.] This is one of those expressions which show the impossibility of unconverted and unbelieving men going to heaven. It is a place where they "cannot come." Their own nature unfits them for it. They would not be happy if they were there. Without new hearts, without the Holy Ghost, without the blood of Christ, they could not enjoy heaven. The favorite notion of some modern theologians, that all mankind are finally to go to heaven, cannot possibly be reconciled with this expression. Men may please themselves with thinking it is kind and loving and liberal and large-hearted to teach and believe that all men and women of all sorts will finally be found in heaven. One word of our Lord Jesus Christ's overturns the whole theory.— Heaven is a place, He says to the wicked, where "ye cannot come." The word "ye" is emphatical, and in the Greek stands out in strong contrast to the "I" of the sentence. v35.—[Then said the Jews...themselves.] The expression "Jews" here can hardly be confined to the Pharisees and rulers. It must mean at any rate those among them who heard our Lord say the words in the preceding verse. Whoever they were, they were probably not friendly to Him. [Whither will He go...not find Him.] This would be more literally rendered, "Whither is this man about to go." They could put no meaning of a spiritual kind on our Lord's words. [Will He go...dispersed...Gentiles, etc.] This would be more literally rendered, "Is He about to go to the dispersion among the Greeks, and to teach the Greeks?" The Greek language, and Greek literature, and Greek philosophy, had so thoroughly leavened Asia Minor and Syria and Palestine, that the expression "Greeks" in the New Testament is often equivalent to Gentiles, and stands for any people who are not Jews. Thus Romans 2:9-10; Romans 3:9; 1 Corinthians 10:32; 1 Corinthians 12:13. Yet it is a singular fact that this is the only passage in the New Testament where the word "Greek," standing alone and not in contradistinction to Jews, is rendered "Gentile." The verse teaches two interesting things. One is the fact that the existence of a large number of Jews scattered all over the Gentile world was acknowledged as notorious in our Lord's time. The other is the impression that it proves to have prevailed among the Jews that a new teacher of religion might be expected to go to the Jews scattered among the Gentiles, and, beginning with them, proceed to teach the Gentiles. This is in fact precisely what the Apostle Paul and his companions afterwards did. They did "go to the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles." The idea stated here of "teaching the Gentiles" was probably the suggestion of those who hated our Lord. How much the Jews detested the opening of the door of salvation to the Gentiles, we know from the Acts of the Apostles. Some, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Hengstenberg, and many others, think that the words "dispersed among the Gentiles" mean the Gentiles themselves dispersed and scattered all over the world, and not the Jews. But our own version seems far more likely. There is an awkwardness in calling the Gentiles "the dispersion," and it is an expression nowhere else used. James calls the Jews "the twelve tribes scattered abroad." (James 1:1.) v36.—[What manner of saying, etc.] This question of the Jews is the language of people who saw that there was probably some deep meaning in our Lord's words, and yet were unable to make out which He meant. Hating our Lord bitterly, as many of them did,— determined to kill Him the first opportunity,— vexed and annoyed at their own inability to answer Him, or to stop His influence with the people,— they suspected everything that fell from His lips.— "Do not these words of His imply some mischief? Is there not some evil at the bottom of them? Do they not indicate that He is going to dishonor the law of Moses by pulling down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile?" IT has been said that there are some passages in Scripture which deserve to be printed in letters of gold. Of such passages the verses before us form one. They contain one of those wide, full, free invitations to mankind, which make the Gospel of Christ so eminently the "good news of God." Let us see of what it consists. We have, first, in these verses, a case supposed. The Lord Jesus says, "If any man thirst." These words no doubt were meant to have a spiritual meaning. The thirst before us is of a purely spiritual kind. It means anxiety of soul,— conviction of sin,— desire of pardon,— longing after peace of conscience. When a man feels his sins, and wants forgiveness— is deeply sensible of his soul's need, and earnestly desires help and relief— then he is in that state of mind which our Lord had in view, when he said, "If any man thirst." The Jews who heard Peter preach on the day of Pentecost, and were "pricked in their hearts,"— the Philippian jailer who cried to Paul and Silas, "What must I do to be saved?" are both examples of what the expression means. In both cases there was "thirst." Such thirst as this, unhappily, is known by few. All ought to feel it, and all would feel it if they were wise. Sinful, mortal, dying creatures as we all are, with souls that will one day be judged and spend eternity in heaven or hell, there lives not the man or woman on earth who ought not to "thirst" after salvation. And yet the many thirst after everything almost except salvation. Money, pleasure, honor, rank, self-indulgence,— these are the things which they desire. There is no clearer proof of the fall of man, and the utter corruption of human nature, than the careless indifference of most people about their souls. No wonder the Bible calls the natural man "blind," and "asleep," and "dead," when so few can be found who are awake, alive, and athirst about salvation. Happy are those who know something by experience of spiritual "thirst." The beginning of all true Christianity is to discover that we are guilty, empty, needy sinners. Till we know that we are lost, we are not in the way to be saved. The very first step toward heaven is to be thoroughly convinced that we deserve hell. That sense of sin which sometimes alarms a man and makes him think his own case desperate, is a good sign. It is in fact a symptom of spiritual life: "Blessed indeed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled." (Matthew 5:6.) We have, secondly, in these verses, a remedy proposed. The Lord Jesus says, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink." He declares that He is the true fountain of life, the supplier of all spiritual necessities, the reliever of all spiritual wants. He invites all who feel the burden of sin heavy, to apply to Him, and proclaims Himself their helper. Those words "Let him come unto me," are few and very simple. But they settle a mighty question which all the wisdom of Greek and Roman philosophers could never settle; they show how man can have peace with God. They show that peace is to be had in Christ by trusting in Him as our mediator and substitute,— in one word, by believing. To "come" to Christ is to believe on Him, and to "believe" on Him is to come. The remedy may seem a very simple one, too simple to be true. But there is no other remedy than this; and all the wisdom of the world can never find a flaw in it, or devise a better. To use this grand prescription of Christ, is the secret of all saving Christianity. The saints of God in every age have been men and women who drank of this fountain by faith, and were relieved. They felt their guilt and emptiness, and thirsted for deliverance. They heard of a full supply of pardon, mercy, and grace in Christ crucified for all penitent believers. They believed the good news and acted upon it. They cast aside all confidence in their own goodness and worthiness, and came to Christ by faith as sinners. So coming they found relief. So coming daily they lived. So coming they died. Really to feel the sinfulness of sin and to thirst, and really to come to Christ and believe, are the two steps which lead to heaven. But they are mighty steps. Thousands are too proud and careless to take them. Few, alas! think, and still fewer believe! We have, lastly, in these verses, a promise held out. The Lord Jesus says, "He that believeth on me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." These words of course were meant to have a figurative sense. They have a double application. They teach, for one thing, that all who come to Christ by faith shall find in Him abundant satisfaction. They teach, for another thing, that believers shall not only have enough for the wants of their own souls, but shall also become fountains of blessings to others. The fulfillment of the first part of the promise could be testified by thousands of living Christians in the present day. They would say, if their evidence could be collected, that when they came to Christ by faith, they found in Him more than they expected. They have tasted peace, and hope, and comfort, since they first believed, which, with all their doubts and fears, they would not exchange for anything in this world. They have found grace according to their need, and strength according to their days. In themselves and their own hearts they have often been disappointed; but they have never been disappointed in Christ. The fulfillment of the other half of the promise will never be fully known until the judgment-day. That day alone shall reveal the amount of good that every believer is made the instrument of doing to others, from the very day of his conversion. Some do good while they live, by their tongues; like the Apostles and first preachers of the Gospel. Some do good when they are dying; like Stephen and the penitent thief, and our own martyred Reformers at the stake. Some do good long after they are dead, by their writings; like Baxter and Bunyan and M'Cheyne. But in one way or another, probably, almost all believers will be found to have been fountains of blessings. By word or by deed, by precept or by example, directly or indirectly, they are always leaving their marks on others. They know it not now; but they will find at last that it is true. Christ's saying shall be fulfilled. Do we ourselves know anything of "coming to Christ"? This is the question that should arise in our hearts as we leave this passage. The worst of all states of soul is to be without feeling or concern about eternity,— to be without "thirst." The greatest of all mistakes is to try to find relief in any other way than the one before us,— the way of simply "coming to Christ." It is one thing to come to Christ's Church, Christ's ministers, and Christ's ordinances. It is quite another thing to come to Christ Himself. Happy is he who not only knows these things, but acts upon them! ================== Notes— v37.— [In...last day...great day...feast.] There seems to be an interval of three days between this verse and the preceding one. At any rate it is certain that our Lord went to the temple and taught "about the midst of the feast." (John 7:14.) There seems no break from that point, but a continuous narrative of teaching and argument up to this verse. There is therefore no account of what our Lord did during the three latter days of the feast. We can only conjecture that He taught on uninterrupted, and that a restraint was put by Divine interposition on His enemies, so that they dared not interfere with Him. Whether this "last day of the feast" means the eight day or the seventh, is a question not decided. (1) Some, as Bengel, and others, think it must be the seventh day, because in the account of the feast of tabernacles given by Moses, there is no special mention of anything to be done on the eight day; (Leviticus 23:33-43;) while on each of the seven days of the feast there were special sacrifices appointed, a special reading of the law once every seven years, and also, according to the Jewish writers, a solemn drawing of water from the pool of Siloam, to be poured on the altar in the temple. (2) Others, as Lightfoot, Gill, Alford, Steir, Wordsworth, and Burgon, think it must be the eighth day, because in reality the feast could hardly be said to be finished till the end of the eighth day; and even in the account of the feast in Leviticus, it is said that the eighth day is to be "a holy convocation" and a "sabbath." (Leviticus 23:36 and Leviticus 23:39.) The point is of no practical importance; but of the two opinions I incline to prefer the second one. The words seem to me to indicate that all the ceremonial of the feast was over, the last offerings had been made, and the people were on the point of dispersing to their respective homes, when our Lord seized the opportunity, and made the grand proclamation which immediately follows.—It was a peculiarly typical occasion. The last feast of the year was concluding, and before it concluded our Lord proclaimed publicly the great truth which was the commencement of a new dispensation, and Himself as the end of all sacrifices and ceremonies. The objection that no drawing and pouring of water took place on the eighth day, appears to me of no weight. That our Lord referred to it, is highly probable. But I think He referred to it as a thing which the Jews had seen seven days running, and remembered well. Now on the eighth day, when there was no water drawn, there seemed a peculiar fitness in his crying,— "Come unto me and drink. The water of life that I give may be drawn, though the feast is over." [Jesus stood and cried.] These words must mean that our Lord chose some high and prominent position, where He could "stand" and be seen and heard by many persons at once. If, as we may suppose, the worshippers at the feast of tabernacles were just turning away from the last of its ceremonies, one can easily imagine that our Lord "stood" in some commanding position close by the entrance of the temple. When it is said that "He cried," it means that He lifted up His voice in a loud, and, to Him, unusual manner, in order to arrest attention,— like a herald making a public proclamation. [If any man thirst...come unto me and drink.] These words can have but one meaning.— They are a general invitation to all who are athirst about their souls, to come unto Christ in order to obtain relief. He declares Himself to be the fountain of life,— the reliever of man's spiritual wants,— the giver of satisfaction to weary consciences,— the remover and pardoner of sins. He recommends all who feel their sins and want pardon, to come unto Him, and promises that they shall at once get what they want. The idea is precisely the same as that in Matthew 11:28, though the image employed is different. It is probable, as almost all commentators remark, that our Lord chose this figure and imagery, because of the Jewish custom of drawing water from the pool of Siloam during the feast of tabernacles, and carrying it in solemn procession to the temple. And it is thought that our Lord purposely refers to this ceremony, of which the minds of many would doubtless be full:— "Does any one want true water of life, better than any water of Siloam?— Let him come to me and by faith draw out of me living waters,— even peace of conscience, and pardon of sins."— But it is fair to remember that this is only conjecture. This custom of drawing water from Siloam at the feast was a human invention, nowhere commanded in the law of Moses, or even mentioned in the Old Testament; and it admits of doubt whether our Lord would have sanctioned it. Moreover, it is evident from John 4:10, and John 6:55, that the figures of "water" and "thirst" were not unfrequently used by our Lord.— The figures at any rate were familiar to all Jews, from Isaiah 55:1. Some have thought, that because the feast of tabernacles was specially intended to remind the Jews of their sojourn in the wilderness, that our Lord had in view the miraculous supply of water from the rock, which followed Israel everywhere, and that He wished the Jews to see in Him the fulfillment of that type, the true Rock. (1 Corinthians 10:4.) The idea is deserving of attention. The whole sentence is one of those golden sayings which ought to be dear to every true Christian, and is full of wide encouragement to all sinners who hear it.— Its words deserve special attention. We should note the breadth of the invitation. It is for "any man." No matter who and what he may have been,— no matter how bad and wicked his former life,— that hand is held out, and the offer made to him:— "If any man thirst, let him come." Let no man say that the Gospel is narrow in its offers. We should note the persons invited. They are those who "thirst." That expression is a figurative one, denoting the spiritual distress and anxiety which any one feels when he discovers the value of his soul, and the sinfulness of sin, and his own guilt. Such an one feels a burning desire for relief, of which the distressing sensation of "thirst"— a sensation familiar to all Eastern nations— is a most fitting emblem. No further qualification is named. There is no mention of repentance, amendment, preparation, conditions to fulfill, new heart to be got. One thing alone is named. Does a man "thirst"? Does he feel his sins and want pardon?— Then the Lord invites him. We should note the simplicity of the course prescribed to a thirsting sinner.— It is simply, "Let him come unto me." He has only to cast his soul on Christ, trust Him, lean on Him, believe on Him, commit his soul with all its burdens to Him, and that is enough. To trust Christ is to "come" to Christ.— So "coming," Christ will supply all his need. So believing, he is at once forgiven, justified, and received into the number of God's children. (See John 6:35, John 6:37.) The expression "drink," is of course figurative, answering to the word "thirst." It means, "Let him freely take from me everything that his soul wants,— mercy, grace, pardon, peace, strength. I am the Fountain of Life. Let him use me as such, and I shall be well pleased." We do not read of any prophet or Apostle in the Bible who ever used such language as this, and said to men, "Come unto me and drink." None surely could use it but one who knew that He was very God. v38.—[He that believeth on me, etc.] This verse is undoubtedly full of difficulties, and has received very various interpretations. Not the least difficulty is about the connection in which the several expressions of the verse ought to be taken. (1) Some as Stier, would connect "He that believeth on me" with the verb "drink" in the preceding verse. It would then run thus:— "If any man thirst let him come unto me, and let him drink that believeth on me."— I cannot think this is a right view. For one thing, it would be a violent strain of all grammatical usage of the Greek language, to interpret the words thus. For another thing, it would introduce doctrinal confusion. Our Lord's invitation was not made to him "that believeth," but to him that is "athirst." (2) Some, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Pellican, Heinsius, Gualter, De Dieu, Lightfoot, Trapp, and Henry, would connect "He that believeth on me," with the following words:— "As the Scripture hath said." It would then mean, "He that believeth on me after the manner that the Scripture bids him believe." I cannot think that this interpretation is correct. The expression, "Believeth as the Scripture hath said," is a very strange and vague one, and unlike anything else in the Bible. (3) Most commentators think that the words, "as the Scripture hath said," must be taken in connection with those that follow, "out of his belly," etc. They think that our Lord did not mean to quote precisely any one text of Scripture, but only to give in His own words the general sense of several well-known texts. This, in spite of difficulties, I believe is the only satisfactory view. One difficulty, of a grammatical kind, arises from the expression, "He that believeth on me," having no verb with which it is connected in the verse. This cannot be got over. It must be taken as a nominative absolute, and the sentence must be regarded as an elliptical sentence, which we must fill up. Another difficulty arises from the fact, that there is no text in the Old Testament Scriptures which at all answers to the quotation apparently given here. This difficulty is undeniable, but not insuperable. As I have already said, our Lord did not intend to give an exact quotation, but only the general substance of several Old Testament promises. Wordsworth thinks Matthew 2:23 a similar case. Jerome also maintains that frequently the inspired writers contented themselves with giving the sense and not the precise words of a quotation. (See also Ephesians 5:14.) Another difficulty arises as to the application of the words, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." Some, as Rupertus, Bengel, and Stier, would apply this to our Lord Himself, and say that it means, "Out of Christ's belly shall flow rivers of living water." But it is a grave objection to this view that it totally disconnects the beginning of the verse from the end,— makes the expression "He that believeth on me" even more elliptical than it needs be,— and throws the latter part of the verse into the form of a precise quotation of Scripture. I venture to think that the true interpretation of the verse is as follows:— "He that believeth on me, or comes to me by faith as his Saviour, is the man out of whose belly shall flow rivers of living water, as the Scripture hath said it should be." It is a strong argument in favor of this view that our Lord said to the Samaritan woman, that the water He could give, would be in him that drank it "a well of water springing up into everlasting life." (John 4:14.) The full meaning of the promise is that every believer in Christ shall receive abundant satisfaction of his own spiritual wants; and not only that, but shall also become a source of blessing to others. From him instrumentally, by his word, work, and example, waters of life shall flow forth to the everlasting benefit of his fellow-men. He shall have enough for himself, and shall be a blessing to others. The imagery of the figure used is still kept up, and "his belly" must stand for "his inner man." His heart being filled with Christ's gifts shall overflow to others, and having received much, shall give and impart much. The passages to which our Lord referred, and the substance of which He gives, are probably Isaiah 12:3; Isaiah 35:6-7; Isaiah 41:18; Isaiah 44:3; Isaiah 55:1; Isaiah 58:11; Zechariah 14:8, Zechariah 14:16. Of these passages our Lord gives the general sense, but not the precise words. This is the view of Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Cocceius, Diodati, Lampe, and Scott. It is a curious, confirmatory fact, that the Arabic and Syriac versions of the text both have the expression "Scripture" in the plural, "As the Scriptures have said." It is a curious fact which Bengel mentions, that the 14th chapter of Zechariah was read in public in the temple, on the first day of the feast of tabernacles. If this is correct we can hardly doubt that our Lord must have had this in mind when He used the expression, "As the Scripture hath said." It is as though He said, "As you have heard, for instance, during this very feast, from the book of your prophet Zechariah." That almost every believer, whose life is spared after he believes, becomes a fountain of blessing and good to others, is a simple matter of fact, which needs no illustration. A truly converted man always desires the conversion of others, and labors to promote it. Even the thief on the cross, short as his life was after he repented, cared for his brother thief; and from the words he spoke have flowed "rivers of living water" over this sinful world for more than eighteen hundred years. He alone has been a fountain of blessing. Bloomfield quotes a Rabbinical sentence:— "When a man turns to the Lord, he is like a fountain filled with living water, and rivers flow from him to men of all nations and tribes." The favorite notion of some, that our Lord in this place only referred to the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, to be given on the day of Pentecost, is an idea that does not commend itself to me at all. The thing before us is a thing promised to every believer.— But the miraculous gifts were certainly not bestowed on every believer. Thousands were evidently converted through the Apostles' preaching who did not receive these gifts. Yet all received the Holy Ghost. Luther paraphrases this verse thus: "He that cometh to me shall be so furnished with the Holy Ghost, that he shall not only be quickened and refreshed himself and delivered from thirst, but he shall also be a strong stone vessel, from which the Holy Ghost in all His gifts shall flow to others, refreshing, comforting, and strengthening them, even as he was refreshed by me. So Peter on the day of Pentecost, by one sermon, as by a rush of water, delivered three thousand men from the devil's kingdom, washing them in an hour from sin, death, and Satan." Hengstenberg, after quoting this, adds, "That was only the first exhibition of a glorious peculiarity which distinguishes the Church of the New Testament from the Church of the Old. She has a living impulse which will diffuse the life within her, even to the ends of the earth." v39.—[But this spake...of the Spirit.] This verse is one of those explanatory comments which are so common in John's Gospel. The opening words would be more literally rendered, "He spake this concerning the Spirit." Let it be noted that here, at any rate, there can be no doubt that "water" does not mean "baptism," but the Holy Spirit.— John himself says so in unmistakable language. [Which they...believe...should receive.] This means, "Which believers in Him were about to receive." There is an inseparable connection between faith in Christ and receiving the Holy Ghost. If any man has faith he has the Spirit. If any man has not the Spirit he has no saving faith in Christ. The effectual work of the Second and Third Persons in the Trinity is never divided. Rupertus thinks that our Lord had specially in view that mighty out-pouring of the Spirit on the Gentile world, which was to take place after His own ascension into heaven, and the going forth of the Apostles into the world to preach the Gospel. [For the Holy Ghost...not yet given, etc.] This sentence means that the Holy Ghost was not yet poured on believers in all His fullness, because our Lord had not yet finished His work by dying, rising again, and ascending into heaven for us. It was not till He was "glorified" by going up into heaven and taking His seat at the right hand of God, that the Holy Ghost was sent down in full influence on the Church. Then was fulfilled Psalms 68:18,— "Thou hast ascended on high, Thou hast led captivity captive: Thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them."— Before our Lord died and rose again and ascended, the Holy Ghost was, and had been from all eternity, one with the Father and the Son, a distinct Person, of equal power and authority, very and eternal God. But He had not revealed Himself so fully to those whose hearts He dwelt in as He did after the ascension; and He had not come down in person on the Gentile world, or sent forth the Gospel to all mankind with rivers of blessing, as He did when Paul and Barnabas were "sent forth by the Holy Ghost." (Acts 13:4.) In a word, the dispensation of the Spirit had not yet begun. The expression, "the Holy Ghost was not yet given," would be more literally rendered, "the Holy Ghost was not." This cannot of course mean that the Holy Ghost did not exist, and was in no sense present with believers in the Old Testament dispensation. On the contrary, the Spirit strove with the men of Noah's day,— David spake by the Holy Ghost,— Isaiah spake of the Holy Spirit,— and John the Baptist, now dead, was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb. (Genesis 6:3; Mark 12:36; Isaiah 63:10-11; Luke 1:15.) What the expression does mean is this. The Holy Ghost was not yet with men in such fullness of influence on their minds, hearts, and understandings, as the Spirit of adoption and revelation, as He was after our Lord ascended up into heaven. It is clear as daylight, from our Lord's language about the Spirit, in John 14:16-17, John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7-15, that believers were meant to receive a far more full and complete outpouring of the Holy Spirit after His ascension than they had received before. It is a simple matter of fact, indeed, that after the ascension the Apostles were quite different men from what they had been before. They both saw, and spoke, and acted like men grown up; while before the ascension they had been like children. It was this increased light and knowledge and decision that made them such a blessing to the world, far more than any miraculous gifts. The possession of the gifts of the Spirit, it is evident, in the early Church was quite compatible with an ungodly heart. A man might speak with tongues, and yet be like salt that had lost its savor. The possession of the fullness of the graces of the Spirit, on the contrary, was that which made any man a blessing to the world. Alford says: "John does not say that the words were a prophecy of what happened on the day of Pentecost; but of the Spirit which the believers were about to receive. Their first reception of Him must not be illogically put in the place of all His indwelling and working, which are here intended." I am quite aware that most commentators hold, that the out-pouring of the Spirit at Pentecost was specially meant by John in this passage. But after carefully considering the matter, I cannot subscribe to this opinion. To confine this verse to the day of Pentecost appears to me to cramp and narrow its meaning,— to deprive many believers of their interest in a most precious promise,— and to overlook all the special language about the inward teaching of the Comforter as a thing to come on believers, which our Lord used the night before His crucifixion. Bengel remarks that the use of "to be" instead of "to be present" is not uncommon in the Bible. (Thus 2 Chronicles 15:3.) When therefore we read "the Holy Ghost was not," we need not be stumbled by the expression. It simply means "He was not fully manifested and poured out on the Church." Peter, and James, and John, no doubt, had the Spirit now, when our Lord was speaking. But they had Him much more fully after our Lord was glorified. This explains the meaning of the passage before us. We should note, in leaving these three verses, what a striking example they supply to preachers, ministers, and teachers of religion. Let such learn from their Master to offer Christ boldly, freely, fully, broadly, unconditionally, to all thirsting souls. The Gospel is too often spoiled in the presentation of it. Some fence it round with conditions, and keep sinners at a distance. Others direct sinners wrongly, and send them to something else beside or instead of Christ. He only copies his Lord who says, "If any one feels his sins, let him come at once, straight, direct; not merely to church, or to the sacrament, or to repentance, or to prayer, but to Christ Himself." THESE verses show us, for one thing, how useless is knowledge in religion, if it is not accompanied by grace in the heart. We are told that some of our Lord's hearers knew clearly where Christ was to be born. They referred to Scripture, like men familiar with its contents. "Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" And yet the eyes of their understanding were not enlightened. Their own Messiah stood before them, and they neither received, nor believed, nor obeyed Him. A certain degree of religious knowledge, beyond doubt, is of vast importance. Ignorance is certainly not the mother of true devotion, and helps nobody toward heaven. An "unknown God" can never be the object of a reasonable worship. Happy indeed would it be for Christians if they all knew the Scriptures as well as the Jews seem to have done, when our Lord was on earth! But while we value religious knowledge, we must take care that we do not overvalue it. We must not think it enough to know the facts and doctrines of our faith, unless our hearts and lives are thoroughly influenced by what we know. The very devils know the creed intellectually, and "believe and tremble," but remain devils still. (James 2:19.) It is quite possible to be familiar with the letter of Scripture, and to be able to quote texts appropriately, and reason about the theory of Christianity, and yet to remain dead in trespasses and sins. Like many of the generation to which our Lord preached, we may know the Bible well, and yet remain faithless and unconverted. Heart-knowledge, we must always remember, is the one thing needful. It is something which schools and universities cannot confer. It is the gift of God. To find out the plague of our own hearts and hate sin,— to become familiar with the throne of grace and the fountain of Christ's blood,— to sit daily at the feet of Jesus, and humbly learn of Him,— this is the highest degree of knowledge to which mortal man can attain. Let any one thank God who knows anything of these things. He may be ignorant of Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and mathematics, but he shall be saved. These verses show us, for another thing, how eminent must have been our Lord's gifts, as a public Teacher of religion. We are told that even the officers of the chief priests, who were sent to take Him, were struck and amazed. They were, of course, not likely to be prejudiced in His favor. Yet even they reported,— "Never man spake like this Man." Of the manner of our Lord's public speaking, we can of necessity form little idea. Action, and voice, and delivery are things that must be seen and heard to be appreciated. That our Lord's manner was peculiarly solemn, arresting, and impressive, we need not doubt. It was probably something very unlike what the Jewish officers were accustomed to hear. There is much in what is said in another place: "He taught them as One having authority, and not as the Scribes." (Matthew 7:29.) Of the matter of our Lord's public speaking we may form some conception from the discourses which are recorded in the four Gospels. The leading features of these discourses are plain and unmistakable. The world has never seen anything like them since the gift of speech was given to man. They often contain deep truths, which we have no line to fathom. But they often contain simple things, which even a child can understand. They are bold and outspoken in denouncing national and ecclesiastical sins, and yet they are wise and discreet in never giving needless offense. They are faithful and direct in their warnings, and yet loving and tender, in their invitations. For a combination of power and simplicity, of courage and prudence, of faithfulness and tenderness, we may well say, "Never man spake like this Man"! It would be well for the Church of Christ if ministers and teachers of religion would strive more to speak after their Lord's pattern. Let them remember that fine bombastic language, and a sensational, theatrical style of address, are utterly unlike their Master. Let them realize, that an eloquent simplicity is the highest attainment of public speaking. Of this their Master left them a glorious example. Surely they need never be ashamed of walking in His steps. These verses show us, lastly, how slowly and gradually the work of grace goes on in some hearts. We are told that Nicodemus stood up in the council of our Lord's enemies, and mildly pleaded that He deserved fair dealing. "Doth our law judge any man," he asked, "before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" This very Nicodemus, we must remember, is the man who, eighteen months before, had come to our Lord by night as an ignorant inquirer. He evidently knew little then, and dared not come to Christ in open day. But now, after eighteen months, he has got on so far that he dares to say something on our Lord's side. It was but little that he said, no doubt, but it was better than nothing at all. And a day was yet to come, when he would go further still. He was to help Joseph of Arimathæa in doing honor to our Lord's dead body, when even His chosen Apostles had forsaken Him and fled. The case of Nicodemus is full of useful instruction. It teaches us, that there are diversities in the operation of the Holy Spirit. All are undoubtedly led to the same Savior, but all are not led precisely in the same way. It teaches us, that the work of the Spirit does not always go forward with the same speed in the hearts of men. In some cases it may go forward very slowly indeed, and yet may be real and true. We shall do well to remember these things, in forming our opinion of other Christians. We are often ready to condemn some as graceless, because their experience does not exactly tally with our own, or to set them down as not in the narrow way at all, because they cannot run as fast as ourselves. We must beware of hasty judgments. It is not always the fastest runner that wins the race. It is not always those who begin suddenly in religion, and profess themselves rejoicing Christians, who continue steadfast to the end. Slow work is sometimes the surest and most enduring. Nicodemus stood firm, when Judas Iscariot fell away and went to his own place. No doubt it would be a pleasant thing, if everybody who was converted came out boldly, took up the cross, and confessed Christ in the day of his conversion. But it is not always given to God's children to do so. Have we any grace in our hearts at all? This, after all, is the grand question that concerns us. It may be small,— but have we any? It may grow slowly, as in the case of Nicodemus,— but does it grow at all? Better a little grace than none! Better move slowly than stand still in sin and the world! ================== Notes— v40.—[Many...people...this saying, said.] The "people" here evidently mean the general multitude of common people, who had come together to attend the feast, and not the chief priests and Pharisees. The "saying" which called forth their remarks appears to be the public proclamation that our Lord had just made, inviting all thirsty souls to come to Him as the fountain of life. That any one person should so boldly announce himself as the reliever of spiritual thirst seems to have arrested attention, and, taken in connection with the fact of our Lord's public teaching during the latter half of the feast, which many of the people must have heard, it induced them to say what immediately follows. Brentius, Musculus, and others, hold strongly that our Lord's words in the preceding three verses must have been greatly amplified, at the time He spoke, and are in fact a sort of text or keynote to His discourse; and that this is referred to in the expression, "this saying." Yet the supposition seems hardly necessary. The words were a conclusion to three days' teaching and preaching. [Of a truth this man...Prophet.] This would be more literally rendered, "This man is truly and really the Prophet." These speakers meant that He must be "the Prophet" like unto Moses, foretold in Deuteronomy. (Deuteronomy 18:15, Deuteronomy 18:18.) v41.—[Others said, This is the Christ.] These speakers saw in our Lord the Messiah, or Anointed Savior, whom all pious Jews were eagerly expecting at this period, and whose appearing the whole nation were looking for in one way or another, though the most part expected nothing more than a temporal Redeemer. (Psalms 45:3-5; Isaiah 61:1; Daniel 9:25-26.) Even the Samaritan woman could say, "I know that Messiah cometh." (John 4:25.) [But some said, Shall Christ...Galilee?] This ought to have been rendered, "But others said." It was not a few exceptional speakers only, but a party probably as large as any. They raised the objection, which was not unnatural, that this new teacher and preacher, however wonderful He might be, was notoriously a Galilean, of Nazareth, and therefore could not be the promised Messiah. How utterly ignorant most persons were of our Lord's birth-place, we see here, as elsewhere. v42.—[Hath not the Scripture said, etc.] We should note in this verse the clear knowledge which most Jews in our Lord's time had of Scripture prophecies and promises. Even the common people knew that Messiah was to be of the family of David, and to be born at Bethlehem, the well-known birth-place of David. It may indeed be feared that myriads of Christians know far less of the Bible than the Jews did eighteen hundred years ago. v43.—[So...division among...people because of Him.] Here we see our Lord's words literally fulfilled.— He did not bring "peace, but division." (Luke 12:51.) It will always be so as long as the world stands. So long as human nature is corrupt, Christ will be a cause of division and difference among men. To some He is a savor of life, and to others of death. (2 Corinthians 2:16.) Grace and nature never will agree any more than oil and water, acid and alkali. A state of entire quiet, and the absence of any religious division, is often no good sign of the condition of a Church or a parish. It may even be a symptom of spiritual disease and death. The question may possibly be needful in such cases, "Is Christ there?" v44.—[And some...would...taken Him.] This would be more satisfactorily rendered, "Some out of those" who made up the crowd "were desirous and wished to take our Lord prisoner."— These were no doubt the friends and adherents of the Pharisees, and very likely were the common people who dwelt at Jerusalem, and knew well what their leaders wanted to do. [No man laid hands on Him.] This must be accounted for primarily by the Divine restraint which was at present laid on our Lord's enemies, because His hour was not yet come;— and secondarily by the fear in which the Pharisees' party evidently stood of a rising in our Lord's defense on the part of the Galileans, and others who had come up to the feast. Thus we read that at the last Passover "the priests and Scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people." (Luke 22:2.) Again: "They said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people." (Mark 14:2, and Matthew 26:5.) v45.—[Then came the officers, etc.] It is not clear what interval of time elapsed between John 7:32, where we read that the officers were sent by the priests to take our Lord, and the present verse where we are told of their coming back to their masters.— At first sight of course it all happened in one day. Yet if we observe that between the sending them to take our Lord, and the present verse, there comes in the remarkable verse, "In the last day, that great day of the feast," it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion, that an interval of two or three days must have elapsed.— It seems highly probable that the officers had a general commission and warrant to take our Lord prisoner, whenever they saw a fitting opportunity, about the fourth day of the feast. They found however no opportunity, on account of the temper and spirit of the crowd, and dared not make the attempt. And at last, at the end of the feast, when the multitude was even more aroused than at first, by our Lord's open testimony, they were obliged to return to those who sent them, and confess their inability to carry out their orders. v46.—[The officers answered, etc.] The answer of the officers has probably a double application. They themselves felt the power of our Lord's speaking. They had never heard any man speak like this man. It tied their hands, and made them feel incapable of doing anything against Him.— They had besides marked the power of His speaking over the minds of the multitude which gathered round Him. They had never seen any one exercise such an influence over His hearers. They felt it useless to attempt arresting one who had such complete command over His audience. We cannot doubt that they had heard much more "speaking" than the few things recorded between John 7:32 and John 7:46. These are only specimens of what our Lord said, and furnish a keynote to us indicating the general tenor of His teaching. What it was precisely that the officers meant when they said "Never man spake like this man," we are left to conjecture. They probably meant that they had never heard any one speak such deep and important truths— in such simple and yet striking language— and in so solemn, impressive, and yet affectionate style. Above all, they probably meant that He spake with a dignified tone of authority, as a messenger from heaven, to which they were entirely unaccustomed. v47.—[Then answered them...Pharisees...ye also deceived?] The word rendered "deceived" means, literally, "led astray," or "caused to err." Have you too been carried off by this new teaching? The question implies anger, sarcasm, ridicule, and displeasure. v48.—[Have any...rulers...Pharisees believed on Him?] This arrogant question was doubtless meant to be an unanswerable proof that our Lord could not possibly be the Messiah:— "Can a person be deserving of the least credit, as a teacher of a new religion, if those who are the most learned and highest in position do not believe Him?"— This is precisely the common argument of human nature in every age. The doctrine which the great and learned do not receive is always assumed to be wrong. And yet Paul says, "Not many wise, not many noble are called." (1 Corinthians 1:26.) The very possession of rank and learning is often a positive hindrance to a man's soul. The great and the learned are often the last and most unwilling to receive Christ's truth.— "How hardly shall a rich man enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23.) It seems clear from this that at present the Pharisees did not know that one of their own number, Nicodemus, was favorably disposed to our Lord. v49.—[But this people...knoweth not law...cursed.] This sentence is full of contempt and scorn throughout. "This people,"— a mob,— a common herd,— "which knoweth not the law," is not deeply read in the Scriptures, and have no deep Rabbinical learning,— "are cursed," are under God's curse and given over to a strong delusion. Their opinion is worthless, and what they think of the new Galilean teacher is of no moment or value.— Charges like these have been made in every age, against the adherents of all reformers and revivers of true religion. the multitude who followed Luther in Germany, our own Reformers in England, and leaders of revived religion in the last century, were always attacked as ignorant enthusiasts whose opinion was worth nothing. When the enemies of vital religion cannot prevent people flocking after the Gospel, and cannot answer the teaching of its advocates, they often fight with the weapons of the Pharisees in this verse. They content themselves with the cheap and easy assertion that those who do not agree with themselves are ignorant and know nothing, and that therefore it matters nothing what they think. Yet Paul says, "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty." (1 Corinthians 1:27.) The poorer and humbler classes are often much better judges of "what is truth" in religion than the great and learned. The disposition of the Jews to pronounce those "accursed" who differed from themselves in religious controversy is exhibited in this verse. Jewish converts to Christianity in modern times are often sadly familiar with cursing from their own relatives. v50.—[Nicodemus...he...came to Jesus by night.] This would be more literally rendered, "He that came to Him by night." The omission of our Lord's name here is very peculiar.— The fact of Nicodemus having come to see Jesus "by night" is always mentioned by John, where his name occurs. (See John 19:39.) It is to my mind a strong proof that he was a coward when he first came to our Lord, and dared not come openly by day. [Being one of them.] This means that he was a chief man, or ruler among the Pharisees, and as such was present at all their deliberations and counsels. His case shows that the grace of God can reach men in any position, however unfavorable it may be to true religion. Even a chief Pharisee, one of that company of men who, as a body, hated our Lord and longed to kill Him, could believe and speak up for Him. We must never conclude hastily that there can be no Christians among a body of men, because the great majority of them hate Christ, and are hardened in wickedness. There was a Lot in Sodom, an Obadiah in Ahab's house, a Daniel in Babylon, saints in Nero's palace, and a Nicodemus among the Pharisees. He was "one out of their number," but not one of them in spirit. v51.—[Doth our law judge any man, etc.] This was undoubtedly speaking up for our Lord, and pleading for His being treated justly and fairly, and according to law. At first sight it seems a very tame and cautious mode of showing his faith, if he had any. But it is difficult to see what more could have been said in the present temper of the Pharisees. Nicodemus wisely appealed to law. "Is it not a great principle of that law of Moses, which we all profess to honor, that no man should be condemned without first hearing from him what defense he can make, and without clear knowledge and evidence as to what he has really done?— Is it fair and legal to condemn this person before you have heard from His own lips what He can say in His defense, and before you know from the testimony of competent witnesses what He has really done?— Are you not flying in the face of our law by hastily judging His case, and setting Him down as a malefactor before you have given Him a chance of clearing Himself?" (See Deuteronomy 1:17, and Deuteronomy 17:8, etc., and Deuteronomy 19:15, etc.) Nicodemus, it will be observed, cautiously takes up his ground on broad general principles of universal application, and does not say a word about our Lord's particular case. The Greek words would be more literally rendered, "Doth our law condemn the man unless it hears from him first." I think there can be no reasonable doubt that these words show Nicodemus to have become a real, though a slow-growing disciple of Christ, and a true believer. It required great courage to do even the little that he did here, and to say what he said. Let us carefully note, that a man may begin very feebly and grow very slowly, and seem to make very little progress, and yet have the true grace of God in his heart. We must be careful that we do not hastily set down men as unconverted, because they get on slowly in the Christian life. All do not grow equally quick. Let us learn to believe that even in high places, and most unlikely positions, Christ may have friends of whom we know nothing. Who would have expected a chief ruler among the Pharisees to rise at this juncture and plead for justice and fair dealing in the case of our Lord. v52.—[They answered...thou also of Galilee?] This was the language of rage, scorn, and bitter contempt. "Art thou too, a ruler, a learned man, a Pharisee, one of ourselves, become one of this Galilean party? Hast thou joined the cause of this new Galilean prophet?" The tone of this bitter question seems to me to prove that Nicodemus had said as much as was possible to be said, on this occasion. The temper and spirit of the Pharisees, from disappointment and vexation at our Lord's increasing popularity, and their own utter inability to stop His course, made them furious at a single word being spoken favorably or kindly about Him. They must indeed have been in a violent frame of mind, when the mere hint at the desirableness of acting justly, fairly, and legally, made them ask a brother Pharisee whether he was a Galilean! Musculus remarks that Nicodemus got little favor from the Pharisees, though his favorable feeling towards our Lord was so cautiously expressed. He observes that this is generally the case with those who act timidly as he did. People may just as well be out-spoken and bold. [Search and look.] This seems to be meant sarcastically. "Go and search the Scriptures again, and look at what they say about the Messiah, before thou sayest one word about this new Galilean prophet. Examine the prophets, and see if thou canst find a tittle of evidence in favor of this Galilean, whose cause thou art patronizing." [Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.] This would be rendered more literally, "a prophet out of Galilee has not been raised." About the meaning of the words there are three very different opinions. (1) Some think that the words only mean, no "prophet of great note or eminence has ever been raised up in Galilee." This, however, is a tame and unsatisfactory view. (2) Some, as Bishop Pearce, Burgon, and Sir N. Knatchbull, think that the Pharisees only meant that "THE Prophet like unto Moses, the Messiah, has nowhere in the Scripture been foretold as coming out of Galilee." According to this view the Pharisees said what was quite correct. (3) Others, as Alford, Wordsworth, Tholuck, and most other commentators, think that the Pharisees, in their rage and fury, either forgot, or found it convenient to forget, that prophets had arisen from Galilee. According to this view they made an ignorant assertion, and said what was not true. I find it very difficult to receive this third opinion. To me it seems quite preposterous to suppose that men so thoroughly familiar with the letter of Scripture as the Pharisees were, would venture on such a monstrous and ignorant assertion, as to say that "no prophet had ever arisen out of Galilee"! Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Jonah, and perhaps Nahum, are all thought by some to have been Galilean prophets. Moreover Isaiah distinctly prophesied that in Messiah's times, Zebulon and Napthali and Galilee of the Gentiles should be a region where "light should spring up." (Matthew 4:14-16.) On the other hand, I must frankly admit that the Greek of the sentence must be much strained to make it mean "the true prophet is not to arise out of Galilee." I do not forget, moreover, that when men lose their tempers and fly into a passion, there is nothing too foolish and ignorant for them to say. Like a drunken man, they may talk nonsense, and say things of which in calm moments they may be ashamed. It may have been so with the Pharisees here. They were no doubt violently enraged, and in this state of mind might say any thing absurd. The point, happily, is not one of first-rate importance, and men may afford to differ about it. Nevertheless if I must give an opinion, I prefer the second of the three views I have given. The improbability of the Pharisees asserting anything flatly contrary to the letter and facts of Scripture, is, to my mind, an insuperable objection to the other views. v53.—[And every man...his own...house.] These words seem to indicate that the assembly of Pharisees, before whom the officers had appeared, reporting their inability to take our Lord prisoner, broke up at once without taking any further action. They saw they could do nothing. Their design to put our Lord to death at once could not be carried out, and must be deferred. They therefore separated and went to their own houses. We may well believe that they parted in a most bitter and angry frame of mind, boiling over with mortified pride and baulked malice. They had tried hard to stop our Lord's course, and had completely failed. The "Galilean" had proved for the time stronger than the Sanhedrim. Once more, as after the miracle of Bethesda, they had been ignominiously foiled and publicly defeated. Hutcheson remarks, "There is no council nor understanding against Christ, but when He pleaseth He can dissipate all of it. Here every man went unto his own house, without doing anything." Maldonatus thinks the verse proves that though the Pharisees sneered at Nicodemus, and reviled him, they could not deny the fairness and justice of what he said. He thinks, therefore, that they dispersed in consequence of Nicodemus' interference. Even one man may do something against many, when God is on his side. Besser quotes a saying of Luther's: "Much as the Pharisees before had blustered, they dared do nothing to Jesus: they became still and silent. He goes up to the feast meek and silent, and returns home with glory.— They go up with triumph, and come down weak." Trapp remarks: "See what one man may do against a mischievous multitude. It is good to be doing, though there be few or none to second us." Baxter remarks: "One man's words may sometimes divert a persecution." THE narrative which begins the eighth chapter of John's Gospel is of a rather peculiar character. In some respects it stands alone. There is nothing quite like it in the whole range of the four Gospels. In every age some scrupulous minds have stumbled at the passage, and have doubted whether it was ever written by John at all. But the justice of such scruples is a point that cannot easily be proved. To suppose, as some have thought, that the narrative before us palliates the sin of adultery, and exhibits our Lord as making light of the seventh commandment, is surely a great mistake. There is nothing in the passage to justify such an assertion. There is not a sentence in it to warrant our saying anything of the kind. Let us calmly weigh the matter, and examine the contents of the passage. Our Lord's enemies brought before Him a woman guilty of adultery, and asked him to say what punishment she deserved. We are distinctly told that they asked the question, "tempting Him." They hoped to entrap Him into saying something for which they might accuse Him. They fancied perhaps that He who preached pardon and salvation to "publicans and harlots" might be induced to say something which would either contradict the law of Moses, or His own words. Our Lord knew the hearts of the malicious questioners before Him, and dealt with them with perfect wisdom, as He had done in the case of the "tribute-money." (Matthew 22:17.) He refused to be "a judge" and lawgiver among them, and specially in a case which their own law had already decided. He gave them at first no answer at all. But "when they continued asking," our Lord silenced them with a withering and heart-searching reply.— "He that is without sin among you," he said, "let him first cast a stone at her." He did not say that the woman had not sinned, or that her sin was a trifling and venial one. But He reminded her accusers that they at any rate were not the persons to bring a charge against her. Their own motives and lives were far from pure. They themselves did not come into the case with clean hands. What they really desired was not to vindicate the purity of God's law, and punish a sinner, but to wreak their malice on Himself. Last of all, when those who had brought the unhappy woman to our Lord had gone out from His presence, "convicted by their own conscience," He dismissed the guilty sinner with the solemn words, "Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more."— That she did not deserve punishment He did not say. But He had not come to be a judge. Moreover, in the absence of all witnesses or accusers, there was no case before Him. Let her then depart as one whose guilt was "not proven," even though she was really guilty, and let her "sin no more." To say in the face of these simple facts that our Lord made light of the sin of adultery is not fair. There is nothing in the passage before us to prove it. Of all whose words are recorded in the Bible there is none who has spoken so strongly about the breach of the seventh commandment as our divine Master. It is He who has taught that it may be broken by a look or a thought, as well as by an open act. (Matthew 5:28.) It is He who has spoken more strongly than any about the sanctity of the marriage relation. (Matthew 19:6.) In all that is recorded here, we see nothing inconsistent with the rest of His teaching. He simply refused to usurp the office of the judge and to pronounce condemnation on a guilty woman, for the gratification of His deadly enemies. In leaving this passage, we must not forget that it contains two lessons of great importance. Whatever difficulties the verses before us may present, these two lessons at any rate are clear, plain, and unmistakable. We learn, for one thing, the power of conscience. We read of the woman's accusers, that when they heard our Lord's appeal, "being convicted by their own conscience, they went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last." Wicked and hardened as they were, they felt something within which made them cowards. Fallen as human nature is, God has taken care to leave within every man a witness that will be heard. Conscience is a most important part of our inward man, and plays a most prominent part in our spiritual history. It cannot save us. It never yet led any one to Christ. It is blind, and liable to be misled. It is lame and powerless, and cannot guide us to heaven. Yet conscience is not to be despised. It is the minister's best friend, when he stands up to rebuke sin from the pulpit. It is the mother's best friend, when she tries to restrain her children from evil and quicken them to good. It is the teacher's best friend, when he presses home on boys and girls their moral duties. Happy is he who never stifles his conscience, but strives to keep it tender! Still happier is he who prays to have it enlightened by the Holy Ghost, and sprinkled with Christ's blood. We learn, for another thing, the nature of true repentance. When our Lord had said to the sinful woman, "Neither do I condemn thee," He dismissed her with the solemn words, "go, and sin no more." He did not merely say, "go home and repent." He pointed out the chief thing which her case required,— the necessity of immediate breaking off from her sin. Let us never forget this lesson. It is the very essence of genuine repentance, as the Church catechism well teaches, to "forsake sin." That repentance which consists in nothing more than feeling, talking, professing, wishing, meaning, hoping, and resolving, is worthless in God's sight. Action is the very life of "repentance unto salvation not to be repented of." Till a man ceases to do evil and turns from his sins, he does not really repent.— Would we know whether we are truly converted to God, and know anything of godly sorrow for sin, and repentance such as causes "joy in heaven"? Let us search and see whether we forsake sin. Let us not rest till we can say as in God's sight, "I hate all sin, and desire to sin no more." ================== Notes— These eleven verses, together with the last verse of the preceding chapter, form perhaps the gravest critical difficulty in the New Testament. Their genuineness is disputed.— It is held by many learned Christian writers, who have an undoubted right to be heard on such matters, that the passage was not written by John, that it was written by an uninspired hand, and probably at a later date, and that it has no lawful claim to be regarded as a part of the canonical Scripture.— It is held by others, whose opinion, to say the least, is equally entitled to respect, that the passage is a genuine part of John's Gospel, and that the arguments against it, however weighty they may appear, are insufficient, and admit of an answer. A summary of the whole case is all that I shall attempt to give. In the list of those who think the passage either not genuine, or at least doubtful, are the following names:— Beza, Grotius, Baxter, Hammond, A. Clark, Tittman, Tholuck, Olshausen, Hengstenberg, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Scrivener. In the list of those who think the passage genuine, are the following names:— Augustine, Ambrose, Euthymius, Rupertus, Zwingle, Calvin, Melancthon, Ecolampadius, Brentius, Bucer, Gualter, Musculus, Bullinger, Pellican, Flacius, Diodati, Chemnitius, Aretius, Piscator, Calovius, Cocceius, Toletus, Maldonatus, á Lapide, Ferus, Nifanius, Cartwright, Mayer, Trapp, Poole, Lampe, Whitby, Leigh, Doddridge, Bengel, Stier, Webster, Burgon. Calvin is sometimes named as one of those who think the passage before us not genuine. But his language about it in his Commentary is certainly not enough to bear out the assertion. He says, "It is plain that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place, and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage. [A.] The arguments against the passage are as follows:— (1) That it is not found in some of the oldest and best manuscripts, now existing, of the Greek Testament. (2) That it is not found in some of the earlier versions or translations of the Scriptures. (3) That it is not commented on my the Greek Fathers, Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, and Theophylact, in their exposition of John; nor quoted or referred to by Tertullian and Cyprian. (4) That it differs in style from the rest of John's Gospel, and contains several words and forms of expression which are nowhere else used in his writings. (5) That the moral tendency of the passage is somewhat doubtful, and that it seems to represent our Lord as palliating a heinous sin. [B.] The arguments in favor of the passage are as follows:— (1) That it is found in many old manuscripts, if not in the very oldest and best. (2) That it is found in the Vulgate Latin, and in the Arabic, Coptic, Persian, and Ethiopian versions. (3) That it is commented on by Augustine in his exposition of this Gospel; while in another of his writings, he expressly refers to, and explains, its omission from some manuscripts:— that it is quoted and defended by Ambrose, referred to by Jerome, and treated as genuine in the Apostolical constitutions. (4) That there is no proof whatever that there is any immoral tendency in the passage. Our Lord pronounced no opinion on the sin of adultery, but simply declined the office of a judge. It may seem almost presumptuous to offer any opinion on this very difficult subject. But I venture to make the following remarks, and to invite the reader's candid attention to them. I lean decidedly to the side of those who think the passage is genuine, for the following reasons:— 1. The argument from manuscripts appears to me inconclusive. We possess comparatively few very ancient ones. Even of them, some favor the genuineness of the passage.— The same remark applies to the ancient versions. Testimony of this kind, to be conclusive, should be unanimous. 2. The argument from the Fathers seems to me more in favor of the passage than against it.— On the one side the reasons are simply negative. Certain Fathers say nothing about the passage, but at the same time say nothing against it.— On the other side the reasons are positive. Men of such high authority as Augustine and Ambrose not only comment on the passage, but defend its genuineness, and assign reasons for its omission by some mistaken transcribers. Let me add to this that the negative evidence of the Fathers who are against the passage is not nearly so weighty as it appears at first sight. Cyril of Alexandria is one. But his commentary on the eighth chapter of John is lost, and what we have was supplied by the modern hand of Jodocus Clichtovœus, a Parisian doctor, who lived in the year 1510, A.D. (See Dupin's Eccles. Hist.)— Chrysostom's commentary on John consists of popular public homilies, in which we can easily imagine such a passage as this might possibly be omitted.— Theophylact was notoriously a copier and imitator of Chrysostom.— Origen, the only remaining commentator, is one whose testimony is not of first-rate value, and he has omitted many things in his exposition of John.— The silence of Tertullian and Cyprian is perhaps accountable on the same principles by which Augustine explains the omission of the passage in some copies of this Gospel in his own time. Some, as Calovius, Maldonatus, Flacius, Aretius, and Piscator, think that Chrysostom distinctly refers to this passage, in his Sixtieth Homily on John, though he passes it over in exposition. 3. The argument from alleged discrepancies between the style and language of this passage, and the usual style of John's writing, is one which should be received with much caution. We are not dealing with an uninspired but with an inspired writer. Surely it is not too much to say that an inspired writer may occasionally use words and constructions and modes of expression which he generally does not use, and that it is no proof that he did not write a passage because he wrote it in a peculiar way. I leave the subject here. In cases of doubt like this, it is wise to be on the safe side. On the whole I think it safest to regard this disputed passage as genuine. At any rate I prefer the difficulties on this side to those on the other. The whole discussion may leave in our minds, at any rate, one comfortable thought. If even in the case of this notoriously disputed passage— more controverted and doubted than any in the New Testament— so much can be said in its favor, how immensely strong is the foundation on which the whole volume of Scripture rests! If even against this passage the arguments of opponents are not conclusive, we have no reason to fear for the rest of the Bible. After all, there is much ground for thinking that some critical difficulties have been purposely left by God's providence in the text of the New Testament, in order to prove the faith and patience of Christian people. They serve to test the humility of those to whom intellectual difficulties are a far greater cross than either doctrinal or practical ones. To such minds it is trying but useful discipline to find occasional passages involving knots which they cannot quite untie, and problems which they cannot quite solve. Of such passages the verses before us are a striking instance. That the text of them is "a hard thing" it would be wrong to deny. But I believe our duty is not to reject it hastily, but to sit still and wait. In these matters "he that believeth shall not make haste." The following passage from Augustine (De conjug. Adult.) is worth notice. Having argued that it well becomes a Christian husband to be reconciled to his wife, upon her repentance after adultery, because our Lord said, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more"— he says, "This, however, rather shocks the minds of some weak believers, or rather unbelievers and enemies of the Christian faith, insomuch that, afraid of its giving their wives impunity of sinning, they struck out of their copies of the Gospel this that our Lord did in pardoning the woman taken in adultery; as if He granted leave of sinning, when He said, "Go, and sin no more." Augustine, be it remembered, lived about 400 A.D. Those who wish to look further into the subject of this disputed passage will find it fully discussed by Gomarus, Bloomfield, and Wordsworth. v1.—[Jesus went...mount...Olives.] The division of the chapter in this place is to be regretted. The last verse of the preceding chapter and the verse before us are evidently intended to be taken together. While the Pharisees and members of the Council "went every man to his own house," our Lord, having no home of His own, retired "to the Mount of Olives," and there spent the night in the open air. In such a climate as that of Judea there was nothing remarkable in His doing this. The garden of Gethsemane, at the foot of the mount, would supply sufficient shelter. That this was our Lord's habitual practice, we are distinctly told in Luke 21:37. Lampe remarks that we never read of our Lord lodging, sleeping, or tarrying a night in Jerusalem. v2.—[And early in the morning.] This expression is worth noticing, because, according to some, it explains our Lord's subsequent use of the figure— "I am the light of the world." They think that it refers to the break of day, or rising of the sun. [He came again...temple.] This means the outer courts of the temple, where it was customary for the Jews to assemble and listen to teachers of religion. In eastern countries and in the times when there was no printing, it must be remembered, much instruction was given in this way, by open air addresses or conversations. Thus Socrates taught at Athens. [All the people came unto Him.] "All" here must mean great multitudes of the people. After all that had happened in the last three or four days, we may easily understand that our Lord's appearance would at once attract a crowd. His fame as a teacher and speaker was established. [He sat down, and taught.] That it was common for the teachers to sit, and the hearers to stand, is evident from other texts. "I sat daily with you teaching in the temple." (Matthew 26:55.) In the synagogues of Nazareth, when our Lord began to preach, He first "gave the book to the minister, and sat down." (Luke 4:20.) "He sat down and taught the people out of the ship." (Luke 5:3.) "We sat down and spake to the women." (Acts 16:13.) v3.— [The Scribes and Pharisees.] This is the only place in John's Gospel where He mentions the "Scribes" at all. He names the Pharisees twenty times,— sixteen times alone, and four times in conjunction with the chief-priests. This fact is thought by some to be an argument against the genuineness of the passage, but without just cause. Mark, in his Gospel, speaks twelve times of the Pharisees, and only twice mentions the Scribes in conjunction with them. Moreover, this is the only occasion recorded in John when a formal attempt was made to entrap our Lord by a subtle question. That being so, there may be a good reason why the scribes should be mentioned as well as the Pharisees, as principal agents in the attempt. [Brought unto Him a woman, etc.] It seems not improbable that this attempt to ensnare our Lord was one result of his enemies' failure to apprehend Him during the feast. Defeated in their effort to meet Him in argument, or to apprehend Him in the absence of any legal charge, they tried next to entrap Him into committing Himself in some way, and so giving them a handle against Him. No time was to be lost. They had failed yesterday, and found their own officers unwilling to apprehend our Lord. They resolved to try another plan to-day. They would ensnare our Lord into doing something illegal or indiscreet, and then get an advantage over Him. [Set her in the midst.] This means in the middle of a ring or circle, composed of themselves and their followers, our Lord and His disciples, and the crowd listening to His teaching. v4.—[They say...this woman...taken...etc.] It throws some light on this charge to remember what immense crowds came up to Jerusalem at the great public feasts, and especially at the feast of tabernacles. At such a season, when every house was crowded, and at a fair time, when many consequently slept in the open air, and no small disorder probably ensued, we can well understand that such a sin as a breach of the seventh commandment would be very likely to be committed. v5.—[Now Moses...law commanded...stoned.] This is the legitimate conclusion of the two texts, Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22, when compared. There seems no ground for the comment of some writers, that Moses did not command an adulteress to be put to death by stoning. It is worth notice, that the expression, "Moses in the law," is not used either by Matthew, Mark, or Luke. But it is used by John both here and John 1:45. [But what sayest Thou?] This would be more literally rendered, "What therefore sayest Thou?" The Greek word rendered "but" by our translators is hardly ever so rendered in the New Testament; and in most places is either "therefore," "then," "so," "now," or "and." John 9:18, and Acts 25:4, are the only parallel cases. Ecolampadius thinks the Pharisees were especially sore and irritated because our Lord had said that "publicans and harlots" would enter the kingdom of God before Pharisees. (Matthew 21:31.) v6.—[This they said, tempting...accuse Him.] In what did this temptation consist? How did the Jews hope to find ground for an accusation? The answer seems easy.— If our Lord replied that the woman ought NOT to be stoned, they would have denounced Him to the people as one that poured contempt on the law.— If our Lord, on the contrary, replied that the woman ought to be stoned, they would have accused Him to the Romans as one who usurped the prerogative of putting criminals to death. See John 18:31— "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." Moreover, they would have published everywhere our Lord's inconsistency in offering salvation to publicans and harlots, and yet condemning to death an adulteress for one transgression. Let it be noticed that subtle ensnaring questions like these, putting the person questioned into an apparent dilemma or difficulty, whatever answer he might give, seem to have been favorite weapons of the Jews. The Pharisees' question about "tribute-money," the lawyer's question about "the great commandment of the law," and the Sadducees' question about "the resurrection," are parallel cases. The question before us is therefore quite in keeping with other places in the Gospels. Augustine remarks, "They said in themselves, 'Let us put before Him a woman caught in adultery; let us ask what is ordered in the law concerning her; if He shall bid stone her, He will not have the repute of gentleness: if He give sentence to let her go, He will not keep righteousness.' " Euthymius says the same. [But Jesus stooped down, etc., etc.] Our Lord's intention in this remarkable sentence can hardly admit of doubt. He declined to answer the subtle question put to Him, partly because He knew the malicious motives of the questioners, partly because He had always announced that He did not come to be "a judge and divider" among men, or to interfere in the slightest degree with the administration of the law. His silence was equivalent to a refusal to answer. But the peculiar action that our Lord employed, in "writing with His finger on the ground," is undeniably a difficulty. John gives no explanation of the action, and we are left to conjecture both why our Lord wrote and what He wrote. (1) Some think, as Bede, Rupertus, and Lampe, that our Lord wrote on the ground the texts of Scripture which settled the question brought before Him, as the seventh commandment, and Leviticus 20:10, and Deuteronomy 22:22. The action would then imply, "Why do ye ask me? What is written in the law, that law which God wrote with His own finger as I am writing now?" (2) Some think, as Lightfoot and Burgon, that our Lord meant to refer to the law of Moses for the trial of jealousy, in which an accused woman was obliged to drink water into which dust from the floor of the tabernacle or temple had been put by the priest. (Numbers 5:17.) The action would then imply, "Has the law for trying such an one as this been tried? Look at the dust on which I am writing. Has the woman been placed before the priest, and drank of the dust and water?" (3) Some think, as Augustine, Melancthon, Brentius, Toletus, and á Lapide, that our Lord's action was a silent reference to the text, Jeremiah 17:13— "They that depart from Me shall be written in the earth." (4) One rationalist writer suggests that our Lord "stooped down" from feelings of modesty, as if ashamed of the sight before Him, and of the story told to Him. The idea is preposterous, and entirely out of harmony with our Lord's public demeanor. (5) Some think, as Euthymius, Calvin, Rollock, Chemnitius, Diodati, Flavius, Piscator, Grotius, Poole, and Hutcheson, that our Lord did not mean anything at all by this writing on the ground, and that He only signified that He would give no answer, and would neither listen to nor interfere in such matters as the one brought before Him. Calvin remarks: "Christ intended, by doing nothing, to show how unworthy they were of being heard; just as if any one, while another was speaking to him, were to draw lines on the wall, or to turn his back, or to show by any other sign, that He was not attending to what was said." I must leave the reader to choose which solution he prefers. To my eyes, I confess, there are difficulties in each view. If I must select one, I prefer the last of the five, as the simplest. Quesnell remarks: "We never read that Jesus Christ wrote but once in his life. Let men learn from hence never to write but when it is necessary or useful, and to do it with humility and modesty, on a principle of charity, and not of malice." v7.—[So when they continued...lifted...said unto them.] The Scribes and Pharisees seem to have been determined to have an answer, and to have made it necessary for our Lord to speak at last. But His first silence and significant refusal to attend were a plain proof to all around that He did not wish to interfere with the office of the magistrate, and had not come to be a judge of offenses against the law. If they got an opinion from Him about this case, they could not say that He gave it willingly, but that it was extorted from Him by much importunity. [He that is without sin...first cast a stone at her.] This solemn and weighty sentence is a striking example of our Lord's perfect wisdom. He referred His questioners to Scripture. Deuteronomy 17:7— "The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death."— It sent their minds home to their own private lives. "Whatever the woman may deserve, are you the people to find fault with her?"— It neither condemned nor justified the adulteress, and yet showed our Lord's reverence for the law of Moses. "I decline to pronounce sentence on this woman, because I am not the judge. You know yourselves what the law is in such cases as well as I do. You have no right to assume that I do not reverence the law as much as yourselves. But since you profess to honor the law of Moses so much, I remind you that this same law requires the witnesses to be the executioners. Now are you the persons who ought to punish this woman, however guilty she may be? Do you yourselves come before Me with clear consciences about the seventh commandment?" Many think that when our Lord said "He that is without sin," He meant the expression to be taken in a general sense. I cannot hold this view. It would involve the awkward conclusion that no one could be a judge at all, or punish a criminal, because no one is altogether and absolutely "without sin." I am decidedly of opinion that our Lord referred to sin against the seventh commandment. There is too much reason to think that such sin was very common among the Jews in our Lord's time. The expression "an adulterous generation" (Matthew 12:39; Matthew 16:4; and Mark 8:38) is full of meaning. (See also Romans 2:22; Luke 18:11; and James 4:4.) v8.—[And again He stooped down, etc.] This repeated act would greatly add to the weighty solemnity of the sentence which had just fallen from our Lord's lips. "I have given my opinion;— now what are you going to do? I wait for your reply." v9.—[And they which heard...conscience.] This sentence seems to me to confirm the opinion, that when our Lord said "he that is without sin," He referred to sin against the seventh commandment. A general charge would hardly have produced the effect here described. A charge of breaking the seventh commandment would be just such an one as a man would shrink from, if made publicly. The sin is peculiarly one which brings with it afterwards a certain sense of shame. It is commonly a deed of darkness and done in secret, and the doer of it dreads the light. The power of conscience stands out here in a very striking manner. It is a part of man's inward nature which is far too little remembered by ministers and teachers. Fallen and corrupt as man is, we must never forget that God has left him a certain sense of right and wrong, called conscience. It has no power to save, or convert, or lead to Christ. But it has a power to accuse, and prick, and witness. Such texts as Romans 2:15 and 2 Corinthians 4:2 should be carefully considered. [Went out...beginning...eldest...last.] The words "eldest" and "last" in this sentence are in the plural number, which does not appear in the English version. The oldest would probably have the greatest number of sins on their minds. [Jesus was left alone, and the woman...midst.] This must of course mean that the scribes and Pharisees who accused the woman were all gone away. It does not necessarily follow that the crowd of hearers who were about our Lord when the case was brought to Him, had gone away. They must have stood by, and seen and heard all that passed. v10.—[When Jesus had lifted up Himself, etc.] How long the pause must have been during which our Lord stooped down and wrote on the ground a second time, we are not told. But it must probably have been several minutes. When it says that our Lord "saw none but the woman," it must mean "none of the party which came and interrupted His teaching, except the woman." The accusers had disappeared, and the accused alone remained. The question that our Lord put to the woman must have been for the satisfaction of the crowd around. Let them mark, from the question and answer, that the case had fallen to the ground. No evidence was offered. No accuser appeared. No sentence therefore could be pronounced, and none was needed. v11.—[She said, No man, Lord.] We may observe here that our Lord, with merciful consideration, did not ask the woman whether she was guilty or not. Thus she could with truth reply to His question, and yet not criminate herself. [Jesus said...Neither do I condemn...sin no more.] The mingled kindness and perfect wisdom of this sentence deserve special notice. Our Lord says nothing of the question whether the woman deserved punishment, and what kind of punishment. He simply says "I do not condemn thee. It is not my province or office to judge or pronounce any sentence."— Nor yet does He tell the woman that she may go away without stain or blemish on her character. On the contrary He implies that she had sinned and was guilty. But in the absence of witnesses she might go away clear of punishment.— Nor yet does He say, "Go in peace," as in Luke 7:50, and Luke 8:48. "Go," He says, "and sin no more." How any one, in the face of this text, can say that our Lord palliates and condones the woman's sin, it is rather hard to understand. That He refused to condemn her is clear and plain, because it was not His office. That He ignored or connived at her sin, as Hengstenberg says (in his argument against the genuineness of the whole passage,) can never be proved. The very last words show what He thought of her case:— "Sin no more." She had sinned, and had only escaped from lack of evidence. Let her remember that, and "sin no more." Augustine remarks, "How Lord? Dost thou then favor sin? Not so, assuredly. Mark what He says: Go: henceforth sin no more. You see then that the Lord condemned, but He condemned sin, not man. For were He a favorer of sin, He would say, "Neither will I condemn thee. Go: live as thou wilt." The remark of Euthymius that our Lord considered the public shame and exposure sufficient punishment for the woman's sin, is thoroughly unsatisfactory, and not warranted by anything in the context.— The view of Bullinger and some others, that one principal object of the passage is to teach our Lord's mercy and readiness to pardon great sinners, appears to me quite destitute of foundation. Christ's abounding mercy is a great truth, but not the truth of this passage.— There seems no parallel between this woman and the Samaritan woman in John 4:1-54. Poole observes that our Lord does not merely say "Commit adultery no more. No partial repentance or sorrow for any particular sin will suffice a penitent that hopes for mercy from God; but a leaving off all sin, of what kind soever it is." \ THE conversation between our Lord and the Jews, which begins with these verses, is full of difficulties. The connection between one part and another, and the precise meaning of some of the expressions which fell from our Lord's lips, are "things hard to be understood." In passages like this it is true wisdom to acknowledge the great imperfection of our spiritual vision, and to be thankful if we can glean a few handfuls of truth. Let us notice, for one thing, in these verses, what the Lord Jesus says of Himself. He proclaims, "I am the light of the world." These words imply that the world needs light, and is naturally in a dark condition. It is so in a moral and spiritual point of view: and it has been so for nearly 6,000 years. In ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, in modern England, France, and Germany, the same report is true. The vast majority of men neither see nor understand the value of their souls, the true nature of God, nor the reality of a world to come! Notwithstanding all the discoveries of art and science, "darkness still covers the earth, and gross darkness the people." (Isaiah 60:2.) For this state of things, the Lord Jesus Christ declares Himself to be the only remedy. He has risen, like the sun, to diffuse light, and life, and peace, and salvation, in the midst of a dark world. He invites all who want spiritual help and guidance to turn to Him, and take Him for their leader. What the sun is to the whole solar system— the center of light, and heat, and life, and fertility,— that He has come into the world to be to sinners. Let this saying sink down into our hearts. It is weighty and full of meaning. False lights on every side invite man's attention in the present day. Reason, philosophy, earnestness, liberalism, conscience, and the voice of the Church, are all, in their various ways, crying loudly that they have got "the light" to show us. Their advocates know not what they say. Wretched are those who believe their high professions! He only is the true light who came into the world to save sinners, who died as our substitute on the cross, and sits at God's right hand to be our Friend. "In His light we shall see light." (Psalms 36:9.) Let us notice, secondly, in these verses, what the Lord Jesus says of those that follow Him. He promises, "He that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." To follow Christ is to commit ourselves wholly and entirely to Him as our only leader and Savior, and to submit ourselves to Him in every matter, both of doctrine and practice. "Following" is only another word for "believing." It is the same act of soul, only seen from a different point of view. As Israel followed the pillar of cloud and fire in all their journeyings— moving whenever it moved, stopping whenever it tarried, asking no questions, marching on in faith,— so must a man deal with Christ. He must "follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth." (Revelation 14:4.) He that so follows Christ shall "not walk in darkness." He shall not be left in ignorance, like the many around him. He shall not grope in doubt and uncertainty, but shall see the way to heaven, and know where he is going.—He "shall have the light of life." He shall feel within him the light of God's countenance shining on him. He shall find in his conscience and understanding a living light, which nothing can altogether quench. The lights with which many please themselves shall go out in the valley of the shadow of death, and prove worse than useless. But the light that Christ gives to every one that follows Him shall never fail. Let us notice, lastly, in these verses, what the Lord Jesus says of His enemies. He tells the Pharisees that, with all their pretended wisdom, they were ignorant of God. "Ye neither know Me nor my Father: if ye had known Me, ye should have known my Father also." Ignorance like this is only too common. There are thousands who are conversant with many branches of human learning, and can even argue and reason about religion, and yet know nothing really about God. That there is such a Being as God they fully admit. But His character and attributes revealed in Scripture, His holiness, His purity, His justice, His perfect knowledge, His unchangeableness, are things with which they are little acquainted. In fact, the subject of God's nature and character makes them uncomfortable, and they do not like to dwell upon it. The grand secret of knowing God is to draw near to Him through Jesus Christ. Approached from this side, there is nothing that need make us afraid. Viewed from this stand-point, God is the sinner's friend. God, out of Christ, may well fill us with alarm. How shall we dare to look at so high and holy a Being?—God in Christ is full of mercy, grace, and peace. His law's demands are satisfied. His holiness need not make us afraid. Christ in one word, is the way and door, by which we must ever draw nigh to the Father. If we know Christ, we shall know the Father. It is His own word,—"No man cometh unto the Father but by Me." (John 14:6.) Ignorance of Christ is the root of ignorance of God. Wrong at the starting-point, the whole sum of a man's religion is full of error. And now, where are we ourselves? Do we know? Many are living and dying in a kind of fog.—Where are we going? Can we give a satisfactory answer? Hundreds go out of existence in utter uncertainty.—Let us leave nothing uncertain that concerns our everlasting salvation. Christ, the light of the world, is for us as well as for others, if we humbly follow Him, cast our souls on Him, and become His disciples.—Let us not, like thousands, waste our lives in doubting, and arguing, and reasoning, but simply follow.—The child that says, "I will not learn anything till I know something," will never learn at all. The man that says, "I must first understand everything before I become a Christian," will die in his sins. Let us begin by "following," and then we shall find light. ================== Notes— Before beginning the notes on this section, I will ask any one who doubts the genuineness of the first eleven verses of the chapter, to consider how very awkwardly John 8:12 would come in if it immediately followed John 7:52.— The omission of the disputed passage about the woman taken in adultery, however necessary some may think it, undoubtedly makes a breach in the connection which cannot be reasonably explained.—Omit the passage, and our Lord appears to break in upon the angry council of the Pharisees, foiled in their attempt to take Him, and vexed with Nicodemus for pleading for Him. This is surely very improbable, to say the least.—Retain the disputed passage, on the other hand, and the whole connection seems plain. A night has passed away. A sunrise is over the whole party assembled in the temple court. And our Lord begins again to teach by proclaiming a beautiful truth, appropriate to the occasion:— "I am the light of the world." v12.—[Then spake Jesus again...them.] The expression "spake again" exactly fits in with the preceding narrative. It carries us back to John 8:2, where we read that our Lord was sitting in the temple and teaching the people, when the woman taken in adultery was brought before Him. This naturally interrupted and broke off His teaching for a time. But when the case was settled, and both accuser and accused had gone away, He resumed His teaching. Then the expression comes in most naturally, "He spake again." Once admit that the narrative of the woman is not genuine and must be left out, and there is really nothing with which to connect the words before us. We are obliged to look back as far as John 7:37 of the last chapter. The same remark applies to the word "them." The natural application of it is to "the people" whom our Lord was teaching, in John 8:2, when the Scribes and Pharisees interrupted Him. Leave out the narrative of the woman, and there is nothing to which the word "them" can be referred, except the angry council of the Pharisees at the end of the seventh chapter. [I am...light...world.] In this glorious expression, our Lord, we cannot doubt, declares Himself to be the promised Messiah or Saviour, of whom the prophets had spoken. The Jews would remember the words, "I will give Thee for a light of the Gentiles." (Isaiah 42:6, Isaiah 49:6.) So also Simeon had said, He would be "a light to lighten the Gentiles." (Luke 2:32.) Why He used this figure, and what He had in His mind in choosing it, is a point on which commentators do not agree. That He referred to something before His eyes is highly probable, and in keeping with His usual mode of teaching. (1) Some think, as Aretius, Musculus, Ecolampadius, Bullinger, and Bp. Andrews, that He referred to the sun, then rising while He spoke. What the sun was to the earth, that He came to be to mankind. (2) Some think, as Stier, Olshausen, Besser, D. Brown, and Alford, that He referred to the great golden lamps which used to be kept burning in the temple courts. He was the true light, able to enlighten men's hearts and minds. They were nothing but ornaments, or at most, emblems. (3) Some think, as Cyril and Lamp, that He referred to the pillar of cloud and fire which gave light to the Israelites, and guided them through the wilderness. He was the true guide to heaven, through the wilderness of this world. The first of these three views seems to me most probable, and most in harmony with the context. Rupertus remarks, that two grand declarations of Christ followed each other on two successive days at Jerusalem. On the last day of the feast He said,— "If any man thirst let him come unto Me and drink." (John 7:37.) The very next day He said,— "I am the light of the world." [He that followeth Me.] This means "following" as a disciple, servant, traveler, soldier, or sheep. What the teacher is to the scholar, the master to the servant, the guide to the traveler, the general to the soldier, the shepherd to the sheep, that is Christ to true Christians. "Following" is the same as "believing." See Matthew 16:24; Matthew 19:21; John 10:27; John 12:26. "Following" here, we must always remember, does not mean copying and imitating, but trusting, putting faith in another. Musculus and Henry observe, that it is of no use that Christ is the light of the world if we do not follow Him. "Following" is the point on which all turns. It is not enough to gaze upon and admire the light. We must "follow" it. [Shall not walk in darkness.] The expression "darkness" in the New Testament sometimes denotes sin, as 1 John 1:6, and sometimes ignorance and unbelief, as 1 Thessalonians 5:4. Some have thought that our Lord referred to the woman taken in adultery, and to such deeds of moral darkness as she had been guilty of. The meaning would then be,— "He that follows Me and becomes my disciple, shall be delivered from the power of darkness, and shall no longer commit such sins as you have just heard of."— Others, on the contrary, think that our Lord only referred to the intellectual darkness and ignorance of man's mind, which He had come to illuminate. The meaning would then be,— "He that follows Me as my disciple shall no longer live in ignorance and darkness about his soul." I decidedly prefer this second view. The promise seems to me to have a special reference to the ignorance in which the Jews were, about everything concerning Christ, as shown in the preceding chapter. [Shall have...light of life.] This expression means,— "He shall possess living light. He shall have spiritual light, as much superior to the light of any lamp or even of the sun, as the living water offered to the Samaritan woman was superior to the water of Jacob's well." The spiritual light that Christ gives is independent of time or place,— is not affected by sickness or death,— burns on forever, and cannot be quenched. He that has it shall feel light within his mind, heart, and conscience,— shall see light before him on the grave, death, and the world to come,— shall have light shining round him, guiding him in his journey through life, and shall reflect light by his conduct, ways and conversation. Chrysostom thinks that one purpose of this promise was to draw on and encourage Nicodemus, and to remind him of the former saying Jesus had used about light and darkness, John 3:20-21. Augustine remarks on this verse, "What is our duty to do, Christ puts in the present tense: what He promised to them that do it, He hath denoted by a future time. He that followeth now, shall have hereafter,— followeth now by faith, shall have hereafter by sight. When by sight? When we shall have come to the vision yonder, when this night of ours shall have passed away." I should be sorry, however, to confine the promise to so limited an interpretation as this, and though I have no doubt it will only be completely fulfilled at the second advent, I still think that it is partially and spiritually fulfilled now to every believer. Calvin remarks, that in this verse "Benefit is offered not only to one person or another, but to the whole world. By this universal statement Christ intended to remove the distinction, not only between Jews and Gentiles, but between learned and ignorant, between persons of distinction and common people." He also says,— "In the latter clause of the verse, the perpetuity of light is stated in express terms. We ought not to fear therefore lest it leave us in the middle of our journey." Brentius remarks, that if a man could continually "follow" the sun, he would always be in broad daylight in every part of the globe. So it is with Christ and believers. Always following Him, they will always have light. In this most precious and interesting verse there are several things which deserve our special attention. (a) We should note the great assumed truth which lies underneath the whole verse. That truth is the fall of man. The world is in a state of moral and spiritual darkness. Naturally men know nothing rightly of themselves, God, holiness, or heaven. They need light. (b) We should note the full and bold manner of our Lord's declaration. He proclaims Himself to be "the light of the world." None could truly say this but One, who knew that He was very God. No Prophet or Apostle ever said it. (c) We should note how our Lord says that He is "the light of the world." He is not for a few only, but for all mankind. Like the sun He shines for the benefit of all, though all may not value or use His light. (d) We should note the man to whom the promise is made. It is to him "that followeth Me." To follow a leader if we are blind, or ignorant, or in the dark, or out of the way, requires trust and confidence. This is just what the Lord Jesus requires of sinners who feel their sins and want to be saved. Let them commit themselves to Christ, and He will lead them safe to heaven. If a man can do nothing for himself, he cannot do better than trust another and follow Him. (e) We should note the thing promised to him who follows Jesus,— viz., deliverance from darkness and possession of light. This is precisely what Christianity brings to a believer. He feels, and sees, and has a sense of possessing something he had not before. God "shines into his heart and gives light." He is "called out of darkness into marvelous light." (2 Corinthians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 2:9.) Melancthon thinks that this verse is only a brief summary of what our Lord said, and must be regarded as the text or keynote of a long discourse. Bullinger remarks how useful it is to commit to memory and store up great sentences and maxims of Christ, like this verse. v13.—[The Pharisees...said unto Him.] These "Pharisees" were probably some of the multitude who had come together to hear our Lord's teaching, and not those who brought the woman taken in adultery to Him. The Pharisees were a powerful and widely-spread sect, and members of their body would be found in every crowd of hearers, ready to raise objections and find fault with anything our Lord said, wherever they thought there was an opportunity. [Thou bearest record of thyself.] This would be more literally rendered, "thou dost witness about thyself." [Thy record is not true.] This means,— "thy testimony is not trustworthy, and deserving of attention." The Pharisees evidently could not mean "thy testimony is false." They only meant that it was an acknowledged principle among men that a man's testimony of his own character is comparatively worthless. Our Lord Himself had admitted this on a former occasion, when He said before the council,— "If I bear witness of myself my witness is not true." (John 5:31.) Solomon had said,— "Let another praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips." (Proverbs 27:2.) v14.—[Jesus answered...though I bear record...true.] Our Lord meant by these words that even if He did testify of Himself, and make assertions about His own office and mission, His testimony ought not to be despised and disregarded as not trustworthy. Whether His enemies would hear it or not, what He said deserved credit, and was worthy of all acceptation.— "The testimony that I bear is not the testimony of a common witness, but of one who is thoroughly to be depended on." [For I know whence I came, etc.] Our Lord here gives a solemn and weighty reason why His testimony to Himself ought to be reverently received by the Jews, and not refused. That reason was His divine nature and mission. He came to them and stood before them not as a common prophet and an every-day witness, but as one who knew the mysterious truth that He was the Divine Messiah, that should come into the world.— "I know whence I came:— I came forth from the Father, to be His Messenger to a lost world. I know whither I go:— I am about to return to my Father when I have finished His work, and to sit down at His right hand after my ascension. Knowing all this, I have a right to say that my testimony is trustworthy. You, on the other hand, are utterly ignorant about Me. You neither know nor believe my Divine origin nor mission. Justly, therefore, I may say that it matters little whether you think my testimony deserving of credit or not. Your eyes are blinded, and your opinion is worthless." Chrysostom observes that our Lord "might have said, I am God. But He ever mingleth lowly words with sublime, and even these He veileth." Bucer, Chemnitius, and Quesnel observe that our Lord's argument is like that of an ambassador from a king, who says,— "I know my commission and Who sent Me, and therefore I claim attention to my message." Webster paraphrases the sentence: "I speak in the full consciousness of my previous and future existence in the glory of the Father; and I therefore feel and assert my right to be believed on my own testimony. If you knew whence I came and whither I go, you would not want any other witness than myself. And this you might know if you were spiritual; but you are carnal, and judge after the flesh." v15.—[Ye judge after the flesh.] The meaning of this sentence seems to be,— "You judge and decide everything on fleshly and worldly principles, according to the outward appearance. You estimate Me and my mission according to what you see with the eye. You presume to despise Me and set light by Me, because there is no outward grandeur and dignity about Me. Judging everything by such a false standard, you see no beauty in Me and my ministry. You have already set Me down in your own minds as an impostor, and worthy to die. Your minds are full of carnal prejudices, and hence my testimony seems worthless to you." Calvin thinks that "flesh" is here used in opposition to "spirit," and that the meaning is, "You judge on carnal wicked principles;" and not, "You judge after the outward appearance." Most commentators think that the expression refers to our Lord's humble appearance. [I judge no man.] In these words our Lord puts in strong contrast the difference between Himself and His enemies. "Unlike you, I condemn and pass judgment on no man, even on the worst of sinners. It is not my present business and office, though it will be one day. I did not come into the world to condemn, but to save." (John 3:17.) It is useless, however, to deny that the connection between the beginning and the end of the verse is not clear. It seems to turn entirely on the twice-repeated word "judge," and the word appears to be used in two different senses. Some have thought that our Lord refers to the case of the woman taken in adultery, and contrasts His own refusal to be a judge in her case, with the malicious readiness of the Pharisees to judge Him and condemn Him even when innocent. "I refuse to condemn even a guilty sinner. You on the contrary are ready to condemn Me, in whom you can find no fault, on carnal and worldly principles." Some, as Bullinger, Jansenius, Trapp, Stier, Gill, Pearce, and Barnes have thought that the sentence before us means,— "I judge no man according to the flesh, as you do." But this view does not seem to harmonize with the following verse. Bishop Hall paraphrases the verse thus: "Ye presume to judge according to your own carnal affections, and follow your outward senses in the judgment ye pass on Me. In the meantime ye will not endure Me, who do not challenge or reconcile that power which I might in judging you." v16.—[And yet if I judge, my judgment, etc.] This verse seems to come in parenthetically. It appears intended to remind the Jews, that if our Lord did not assume the office of a judge now, it was not because He was not qualified. The sense is as follows: "Do not however suppose, because I say that I judge no man, that I am not qualified to judge. On the contrary, if I do pass judgment on any person's actions or opinions, my judgment is perfectly correct and trustworthy. For I am not alone. There is an inseparable union between Me, and the Father that sent Me. When I judge, it is not I alone, but the Father with Me that judges. Hence, therefore, my judgment is and must be trustworthy." The reader should compare John 5:19, and John 5:30. The doctrine is the same. That mighty truth,— the inseparable union of the Father and the Son,— is the only key that unlocks the deep expression before us. Our Lord's frequent reference to that truth, in John's Gospel, should be carefully noted. v17.—[It is also written, etc.] Our Lord, in this verse, reminds the Jews of an admitted principle of the law of Moses,— that the testimony of two witnesses deserved credit. (Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15.) "You will admit that the testimony of two witnesses deserves credit at any rate, although one witness alone may prove nothing. Now, admitting this, hear what testimony I can adduce to the divine character of my mission." Let it be noted, that where our Lord says "in YOUR law," He did not mean that He was above the law and did not recognize its authority. He only intended, by laying stress on the word "your," to remind the Jews that it was their own honored law of Moses, to which they were continually professing to refer, that laid down the great principle to which He was about to direct their attention. "It is written in the law that YOU speak of so much, and that you so often quote." It admits of consideration whether our Lord did not mean to use the expression "of two men" emphatically. It may be that He would put in strong contrast the testimony of two mere men, with the testimony of Himself and His Father in heaven. It is like the expression, "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." (1 John 5:9.) At any rate the word rendered "men" is emphatic in the Greek. v18.—[I am one, etc.] The connection and sense of this verse are as follows: "Admitting that the testimony of two witnesses is trustworthy, I bid you observe that there are two witnesses to my Divine nature and mission. I myself, the Eternal Son, am one of these witnesses: I am ever testifying concerning myself. The Father that sent Me into the world is the other witness: He is ever testifying concerning Me. He has testified by the mouth of the Prophets in the Old Testament. He is testifying now by the miraculous works which He is continually doing by my hands." The reader should compare John 5:31-39. There is undeniably something very remarkable about this verse. It seems a singular condescension on our Lord's part to use the train of argument that it contains. The true solution probably lies in the very high dignity of the two witnesses, whom He places together before the Jews. The Greek words beginning the verse are peculiar, and can hardly be rendered in English. They will almost bear to be translated,— "I, the great I am, am the person witnessing about myself; and the Father," etc. Chrysostom and Theophylact both remark that our Lord here claims equality of honor with the Father, by putting His testimony and the Father's side by side. Poole remarks: "Our Savior must not be understood here to distinguish himself from His Father in respect of His Divine being, for so He and His Father are one; but in respect of His office, as He was sent, and His Father was He who sent Him." v19.—[Then said they...Where is thy Father?] This question of the Jews was probably not asked in a tone of serious inquiry, or from real desire to know. It was more likely sneering and sarcastic. Calvin observes, "By these words they meant that they did not so highly value Christ's Father as to ascribe anything to the Son on His account." Hengstenberg bids us observe that they did not ask, "Who is thy Father?" but "Where is thy Father?" It sounds as if they looked round in contempt, as if scornfully expecting an earthly father to stand forth and testify to Christ. [Jesus answered, Ye neither know Me...Father.] Our Lord here tells His enemies that they were ignorant both of Himself and of His Father in heaven. With all their pride of knowledge and fancied high attainments they knew nothing rightly either of the Father or the Son. The expression certainly favors the idea that the expression "Ye know me," (John 7:28,) must be taken as a slight sarcasm. Let it be noted that great familiarity with the letter of Scripture is perfectly compatible with gross spiritual darkness. The Pharisees knew the Old Testament prophecies well; but they neither knew God nor Christ. [If ye had known Me...my Father also.] These words teach plainly that ignorance of Christ and ignorance of God are inseparably connected. The man who thinks he knows anything rightly of God while he is ignorant of Christ is completely deceived. The God whom he thinks he knows is not the God of the Bible, but a God of his own fancy's invention. At any rate he can have a most imperfect conception of God, and can have but little idea of His perfect holiness, justice, and purity. The words teach also that Christ is the way by which we must come to the knowledge of God. In Him, through Him, and by Him, we may come boldly into the Father's presence, and behold His high attributes without fear. He that would have saving, soul-satisfying religion, and become a friend and servant of God, must begin with Christ. Knowing Him as his Savior and Advocate, he will find it easy and pleasant to know God the Father. Those that reject Christ, like the Jews, will live and die in ignorance of God, however learned and clever they may be. But the poorest, humblest man, that lays hold on Christ and begins with Him, shall find out enough about God to make him happy for ever. In the matter of becoming acquainted with God it is the first step to know Jesus Christ, the Mediator, and to believe on Him. Augustine and others think that the thought here is the same as that in the words spoken to Philip, when in reply to Philip's question, "Lord, show us the Father," Jesus said, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father." (John 14:8-9.) I think this is at least doubtful. The thing that Philip needed to know was the precise relation between the Father and the Son. The thing that the Jews needed was a right knowledge of God altogether. v20.—[These words spake Jesus...treasury...temple.] This sentence seems meant to mark a pause or break in the discourse, and to show also how publicly and openly our Lord proclaimed His Messiahship. It was in a well known part of the temple called the treasury that He declared Himself to be "the light of the world," and defended His testimony. Calvin thinks that "the treasury was a part of the temple where the sacred offerings were laid up, and therefore a much frequented place." [No man laid hands on Him.] The remark made on a former occasion applies here. (John 7:30.) A divine restraint was laid on our Lord's enemies. They felt unable to lift a finger against Him. They had the will to hurt, but not the power. [His hour was not yet come.] The same deep thought that we remarked in John 7:30, comes up here again. There was a certain fixed time during which our Lord's ministry was to last, and till that time was expired His enemies could not touch Him. When the time had expired, our Lord said, "This is your hour, and the power of darkness." (Luke 22:53.) The expression should be carefully noticed, and remembered by all true Christians. It teaches that the wicked can do no harm to Christ and His members until God gives them permission. Not a hair of a believer's head can be touched until God in His sovereign wisdom allows it.— It teaches that all times are in God's hand. There is an allotted "hour" both for doing and for suffering. Till the hour comes for dying no Christian will die. When the hour comes nothing can prevent his death. These are comfortable truths, and deserve attention. Christ's members are safe and immortal till their work is done. When they suffer it is because God wills it and sees it good. Quesnel remarks: "A man enjoys the greatest peace of mind when he has once settled himself in a firm and steadfast belief of God's providence, and an absolute dependence upon His design and will." THIS passage contains deep things, so deep that we have no line to fathom them. As we read it we should call to mind the Psalmist's words,—"Thy thoughts are very deep." (Psalms 92:5.) But it also contains, in the opening verses, some things which are clear, plain, and unmistakable. To these let us give our attention and root them firmly in our hearts. We learn, for one thing, that it is possible to seek Christ in vain. Our Lord says to the unbelieving Jews, "Ye shall seek Me, and shall die in your sins." He meant, by these words, that the Jews would one day seek Him in vain. The lesson before us is a very painful one. That such a Savior as the Lord Jesus, so full of love, so willing to save, should ever be sought "in vain," is a sorrowful thought. Yet so it is! A man may have many religious feelings about Christ, without any saving religion. Sickness, sudden affliction, the fear of death, the failure of usual sources of comfort—all these causes may draw out of a man a good deal of "religiousness." Under the immediate pressure of these he may say his prayers fervently, exhibit strong spiritual feelings, and profess for a season to "seek Christ," and be a different man. And yet all this time his heart may never be touched at all! Take away the peculiar circumstances that affected him, and he may possibly return at once to his old ways. He sought Christ "in vain," because he sought Him from false motives, and not with his whole heart. Unhappily this is not all. There is such a thing as a settled habit of resisting light and knowledge, until we seek Christ "in vain." Scripture and experience alike prove that men may reject God until God rejects them, and will not hear their prayer. They may go on stifling their convictions, quenching the light of conscience, fighting against their own better knowledge, until God is provoked to give them over and let them alone. It is not for nothing that these words are written,—"Then shall they call upon Me, but I will not answer; they shall seek Me early, but they shall not find Me: for that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD." (Proverbs 1:28-29.) Such cases may not be common; but they are possible, and they are sometimes seen. Some ministers can testify that they have visited people on their death-beds who seem to seek Christ, and yet seek in vain. There is no safety but in seeking Christ while He may be found, and calling on Him while He is near,—seeking Him with a true heart, and calling on Him with an honest spirit. Such seeking, we may be very sure, is never in vain. It will never be recorded of such seekers, that they "died in their sins." He that really comes to Christ shall never be "cast out." The Lord has solemnly declared that "He hath no pleasure in the death of him that dieth,"—and that "He delighteth in mercy." (Ezekiel 18:32; Micah 7:18.) We learn for another thing, how wide is the difference between Christ and the ungodly. Our Lord says to the unbelieving Jews,—"Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." These words, no doubt, have a special application to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In the highest and most literal sense, there never was but One who could truly say, "I am from above,—I am not of this world." That One is He who came forth from the Father, and was before the world,—even the Son of God. But there is a lower sense, in which these words are applicable to all Christ's living members. Compared to the thoughtless multitude around them, they are "from above," and "not of this world," like their Master. The thoughts of the ungodly are about things beneath; the true Christian's affections are set on things above. The ungodly man is full of this world; its cares and pleasures and profits, absorb his whole attention. The true Christian, though in the world, is not of it; his citizenship is in heaven, and his best things are yet to come. The true Christian will do well never to forget this line of demarcation. If he loves his soul, and desires to serve God, he must be content to find himself separated from many around him by a gulf that cannot be passed. He may not like to seem peculiar and unlike others; but it is the certain consequence of grace reigning within him. He may find it brings on him hatred, ridicule, and hard speeches; but it is the cup which his Master drank, and of which his Master forewarned all His disciples.—"If ye were of the world the world would love His own, but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19.)—Then let the Christian never be ashamed to stand alone and show his colors. He must carry the cross if he would wear the crown. If he has within him a new principle "from above," it must be seen. We learn, lastly, how awful is the end to which unbelief can bring men. Our Lord says to his enemies, "If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins." These solemn words are invested with peculiar solemnity when we consider from whose lips they came. Who is this that speaks of men dying "in their sins," unpardoned, unforgiven, unfit to meet God,—of men going into another world with all their sins upon them? He that says this is no other than the Savior of mankind, who laid down His life for his sheep,—the loving, gracious, merciful, compassionate Friend of sinners. It is Christ Himself! Let this simple fact not be overlooked. They are greatly mistaken who suppose that it is harsh and unkind to speak of hell and future punishment. How can such persons get over such language as that which is before us? How can they account for many a like expression which our Lord used, and specially for such passages as those in which He speaks of the "worm that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched"? (Mark 9:46.) They cannot answer these questions. Misled by a false charity and a morbid amiability, they are condemning the plain teaching of the Scripture, and are wise above that which is written. Let us settle it in our minds, as one of the great foundation truths of our faith, that there is a hell. Just as we believe firmly that there is an eternal heaven for the godly, so let us believe firmly that there is an eternal hell for the wicked. Let us never suppose that there is any want of charity in speaking of hell. Let us rather maintain that it is the highest love to warn men plainly of danger, and to beseech them to "flee from the wrath to come." It was Satan, the deceiver, murderer, and liar, who said to Eve in the beginning, "Ye shall not surely die." (Genesis 3:4.) To shrink from telling men, that except they believe they will "die in their sins," may please the devil, but surely it cannot please God. Finally, let us never forget that unbelief is the special sin that ruins men's souls. Had the Jews believed on our Lord, all manner of sin and blasphemy might have been forgiven them. But unbelief bars the door in mercy's face, and cuts off hope. Let us watch and pray hard against it. Immorality slays its thousands, but unbelief its tens of thousands. One of the strongest sayings ever used by our Lord was this,—"He that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16.) ================== Notes— v21.—[Then said Jesus again unto them.] There seems a break or pause between this verse and the preceding one. It is as if our Lord resumed discourse with a new leading thought or key-note. The other idea, viz., that "again" refers to John 7:34, and means that our Lord impressed on his hearers a second time that He would soon leave them, does not seem probable.— It seems not unlikely that in the first instance our Lord spoke of "going" to the officers of the priests and Pharisees, and that here He speaks to their masters, or at least to a different set of hearers. [I go my way.] This must mean, "I am soon about to leave this world. My mission is drawing to a close. The time of My decease and sacrifice approaches, and I must depart, and go back to My Father in heaven, from whence I came."— The leading object of the sentence appears to be to excite in the minds of the Jews thought and inquiry about His divine nature. "I am one who came from heaven, and am going back to heaven. Ought you not to inquire seriously who I am?" Chrysostom thinks our Lord said this, partly to shame and terrify the Jews, and partly to show them that His death would not be effected by their violence, but by His own voluntary submission. [Ye shall seek me...die in...sins.] This means that His hearers would seek Him too late, having discovered too late that He was the Messiah whom they ought to have received. But the door of mercy would then be shut. They would seek in vain, because they had not known the day of their visitation. And the result would be that many of them would die miserably "in their sins,"— with their sins upon them unpardoned and unforgiven. [Whither I go ye cannot come.] This must mean heaven, the everlasting abode of glory which the Son had with the Father before He came into the world, which He left for a season when He became incarnate, and to which He returned when He had finished the work of man's redemption. To this a wicked man cannot come. Unbelief shuts him out. It is impossible in the nature of things that an unforgiven, unconverted, unbelieving man can go to heaven. The words in Greek are emphatic,—"Ye cannot come." The notion of Augustine and others that "Ye shall seek Me" only means "ye shall seek Me in order to kill Me, as ye are wishing to do now, but at last I shall be withdrawn from your reach,"— seems to me quite untenable. The "seeking," to my mind, can only be the too late seeking of remorse.— The theory of some, that it refers exclusively to the time of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, seems to me equally untenable. My belief is that from the time that our Lord left the world down to this day, the expression has been peculiarly true of the Jewish nation. They have been perpetually, in a sense, "seeking" and hungering after a Messiah, and yet unable to find Him, because they have not sought aright.— In saying this we must carefully remember that our Lord did not mean to say that any of His hearers were too sinful and bad to be forgiven. On the contrary, not a few of them that crucified Him found mercy on the day of Pentecost, when Peter preached. (Acts 2:22-41.) But our Lord did mean to say prophetically that the Jewish nation, as a nation, would be specially hardened and unbelieving, and that many of them, though an elect remnant might be saved, would "die in their sins." In proof of this peculiar blindness and unbelief of the Jewish nation we should study Acts 28:25-27; Romans 11:7, and 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16. The Greek expression for "sins" in this verse confirms the view. It is not, literally rendered, "sins," but "sin,"—your special sin of unbelief. Let us note that it is possible to seek Christ too late, or from a wrong motive, and so to seek Him in vain. This is a very important principle of Scripture. True repentance, doubtless, is never too late, but late repentance is seldom true. There is mercy to the uttermost in Christ; but if men willfully reject Him, turn away from Him, and put off seeking Him in earnest, there is such a thing as "seeking Christ" in vain. Such passages as Proverbs 1:24-32; Matthew 25:11-12; Luke 13:24-27; Hebrews 6:4-8, and Hebrews 10:26-31, ought to be carefully studied. Let us note that our Lord teaches plainly that it is possible for men to "die in their sins," and never come to the heaven where He has gone. This is flatly contrary to the doctrine taught by some in the present day, that there is no hell and no future punishment, and that all will finally go to heaven. It is worthy of remark that our Lord's words, "Ye shall seek Me," and "Whither I go ye cannot come," are used three times in this Gospel:— twice to the unbelieving Jews, here and John 7:34, and once to the disciples, John 13:33. But the careful reader will observe that in the two first instances the expression is coupled with, "Ye shall not find Me," and "Ye shall die in your sins." In the last, it evidently means the temporary separation between Christ and His disciples which would be caused by His ascension. Melancthon observes that nothing seems to bring on men such dreadful guilt and punishment as neglect of the Gospel. The Jews had Christ among them and would not believe, and so when afterward they sought they could not find. Rollock observes that the "seeking" which our Lord here foretells was like that of Esau, when he sought too late for the lost birthright. Burkitt observes, "Better a thousand times to die in a ditch than to die in our sins! They that die in their sins shall rise in their sins, and stand before Christ in their sins. Such as lie down in sin in the grave shall have sin lie down with them in hell to all eternity. The sins of believers go to the grave before them; sin dieth while they live. The sins of unbelievers go to the grave with them." v22.—[Then said the Jews, etc.] It is plain that this last saying of our Lord perplexed His enemies. It evidently implied something which they did not understand. In the preceding chapter (John 7:34-35) they began speculating whether it meant that our Lord was going forth into the world to teach the Gentiles. Here they start another conjecture, and begin to suspect that our Lord must mean His going into another world by death. But by what death did He think of going? Did He mean to "kill Himself"? It seems strange that they should start such an idea. But may it not be that their minds were occupied with their own plan of putting Him to death? "Will He really anticipate our plan, by committing suicide, and thus escape our hands?" Origen suggests that the Jews had a tradition about the manner in which Messiah would die: viz., "that He would have power to depart at His own time, and in a way of His own choosing." Rupertus observes that afterwards, at the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, many of the desperate Jews did the very thing they here said of our Lord— they killed themselves in madness of despair. Melancthon remarks that nothing seems to anger wicked men so much as to be told they cannot come where Christ is. v23.—[And He said, Ye are from beneath, etc.] Our Lord's argument in this case appears to be as follows: "There is no union, harmony, or fellowship between you and Me. Your minds are entirely absorbed and buried in earth and objects of a mere earthly kind. You are from beneath, and of this world; while I came from heaven, and my heart is full of the things of heaven and my Father's business. No wonder, therefore, that I said you cannot come where I go, and will die in your sins. Unless your hearts are changed, and you learn to be of one mind with Me, you are totally unmeet for heaven, and must at last die in your sins." The expressions "from beneath" and "from above" are strong figurative phrases, intended to put in contrast earth and heaven. (See Colossians 3:1-2.) The Greek phrases literally rendered would be,—"Ye are from the things beneath: I am from the things above." The expression "of this world" means bound up with, and inseparably connected by, tastes, aims, and affections, with this world, and nothing else but this world. It is the character of one utterly dead and graceless, who looks at nothing but the world, and lives for it. It is a character utterly at variance with that of our Lord, who was eminently "not of this world;" and therefore those who were of this character were incapable of union and friendship with Him." Let it be noted that what our Lord says of Himself here is the very same thing that is said of His true disciples elsewhere. If a man has grace he is "not of this world." (See John 15:19; John 17:16; and 1 John 4:5.) Christ's living members always have more or less of their Master's likeness in this respect. They are always more or less separated from and distinct from this world. He that is thoroughly worldly has the plainest mark of not being a member of Christ and a true Christian. Theophylact observes that the strange notion of the Apollinarian heretics, that our Lord's body was not a real human body, but came down from heaven, was built on this verse for one of its reasons. But, as he remarks, they might as well say the Apostles had not common human bodies, since the same thing is said of them— "not of this world." v24.—[I said therefore, etc.] This verse seems elliptical, and must be filled up in some such manner as this: "It is because you are thoroughly earthly and of this world, that I said, Ye cannot come where I go. You are not heavenly minded, and cannot go to heaven, but must go to your own place. The end will be that you will die in your sins. Not believing in Me as the Messiah, you cut yourselves off from all hope, and must die in your sins. This, in short, is the root of all your misery— your unbelief." Let it be noted that unbelief is the thing that specially ruins men. All manner of sin may be forgiven. But unbelief bars the door against mercy. (Mark 16:16, and John 3:36.) Let it be noted that unbelief was the secret of the Jews being so thoroughly "of the world." If they would only have believed in Christ, they would have been "delivered from this present evil world." The victory that overcomes the world is faith. Once believing on a heavenly Savior a man has a portion and a heart in heaven. (Galatians 1:4; 1 John 5:4-5.) Let it be noted that there is nothing hard or uncharitable in warning men plainly of the consequences of unbelief. Never to speak of hell is not acting as Christ did. The expression "believe not that I am He" would be more literally rendered "Believe not that I am." Hence some think that our Lord refers to the great name, well known to the Jews, under which God revealed Himself to Israel in Egypt,— "Say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent you." (Exodus 3:14.) Augustine remarks that "the whole unhappiness of the Jews was not that they had sin, but to die in sins." He also observes, "In these words, Except ye believe that I am, Jesus meant nothing short of this, Except ye believe that I am God, ye shall die in your sins. It is well for us, thank God, that He said except ye believe, and not except ye understand." Quesnel remarks: "It is a mistaken prudence to hide these dreadful truths from sinners, for fear of casting them into despair by the force of God's judgments. We ought, on the contrary, to force them, by the sight of danger, to throw themselves into the arms of Christ, the only refuge for sinners." v25.—[Then said they...Who art Thou?] This question cannot have been an honest inquiry about our Lord's nature and origin. Our Lord had spoken so often of His Father,— for instance, in the fifth chapter, when before the council,— that the Jews of Jerusalem must have known well enough who and what He claimed to be. It is far more likely that they hoped to elicit from Him some fresh declaration which they could lay hold on, and make the ground of an accusation. Anger and malice seem at the bottom of the question— "Who art thou that sayest such things of us? Who art thou that undertakest to pronounce such condemnation on us?" Ecolampadius thinks the question was asked sarcastically,— "Who art thou, indeed, to talk in this way?" [And Jesus saith...even the same...beginning.]— Our Lord's reply here seems so guarded and cautious, that it increases the probability of the Jews' question being put with a malicious intention. He knew their thoughts and designs, and answered them by reminding them what He had always said of Himself: "Why ask Me who I am? You know well what I have always said of Myself. I am the same that I said to you from the beginning. I have nothing new to say." Scott thinks it simply means, "I am the same that I told you at the beginning of this discourse,— the Light of the World." There is an undeniable difficulty and obscurity about the sentence before us, and it has consequently received three different interpretations. The difficulty arises chiefly from the word "beginning." (a) Some think, as our own English version, Chrysostom, Calvin, Bucer, Gualter, Cartwright, Rollock, and Lightfoot, that "beginning" means the beginning of our Lord's ministry. "I am the same person that I told you I was from the very first beginning of My ministry among you." This view is confirmed by the Septuagint rendering of Gen 43:18, Genesis 43:20. (b) Some think, as Theophylact, Melancthon, Aretus, and Musculus, that "beginning" is an adverb, and means simply, "as an opening or beginning statement." "First of all, as a commencement of My reply, I tell you that I am what I always said I was." (c) Some think, as Augustine, Rupertus, Toletus, Ferus, Jansenius, Lampe, and Wordsworth, that "beginning" is a substantive, and means the Beginning of all things, the personal Beginning, like "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End." (Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:13.) It would then mean, "I am the great beginning of all things, the eternal God, as I always said." The reader must exercise his own judgment on these three views. The extreme brevity and conciseness of the Greek words make it very hard to give a decided opinion upon them. On the whole, I prefer the view taken by our translators. In three other places in John's Gospel our Lord speaks of His early ministry as "the beginning." (John 6:64; John 15:27; John 16:4.) In no place in John's Gospel does He ever call Himself "the beginning." As to the second view, that it only means, "First of all, as an opening statement," it seems to me so meager, flat, and bald, that I cannot think it is correct. Rollock, who takes the view of our English version, observes what a bright example our Lord here sets to all Christian's, and especially to ministers, of always telling the same story, and witnessing one and the same confession without variation. v26.—[I have many things, etc.] This verse again is very elliptical. The meaning seems to be as follows: "You marvel and are angry at My saying that you are from beneath, and will die in your sin, and cannot come where I go. You ask who I am that speak and judge in this manner. But I tell you that I have many other things that I might say, and other judgments that I might pronounce about you. But I forbear now. Yet I tell you that He who sent Me is the one true God; and I only speak to the world things which I have heard of Him, and am commissioned by Him to proclaim. He that sent Me will prove them to be true one day." The general idea seems to be that our Lord defends His right to speak decidedly and pronounce judgment on His enemies' conduct on the ground of His divine mission, "I have a right to say what I have said; and I might say much more, because I am not a common prophet, but am commissioned and sent as the Word of the Father." The frequency with which our Lord speaks of Himself as "sent by the Father," in John's Gospel, should be carefully noticed. When our Lord speaks of Himself as "hearing" things from the Father, we must remember that His language is accommodated to our understanding. The relation between the Father and the Son in the Trinity is something too mysterious for us fully to comprehend. The Son does not really and literally need the Father to "speak" to Him, and does not himself need to "hear" Him. The first and second Persons in the Trinity are ineffably united, though two distinct Persons. Lightfoot thinks the latter part of this verse means, "He that sent Me hath of old said and judged of you, and He is true, and they are true things that He said. Of this kind are the passages Isaiah 11:10, and Isaiah 29:10, and from such predictions Christ concludes thus,— 'ye shall die in your sins.' " v27.—[They understood not, etc.] Why the Jews who heard these words did not comprehend that our Lord spoke of the "Father" is not clear. They must have thought that "He that sent Me" meant some earthly sender. The extent to which our Lord's hearers sometimes understood Him, as in John 5:18, and sometimes did not understand Him, as here, is a curious subject. Alford observes: "There is no accounting for the ignorance of unbelief; as any minister of Christ knows by painful experience." v28.—[Then said Jesus, etc.] This verse is prophetical. Our Lord predicts that after His crucifixion the Jews would know that He was the Messiah, that He had done all He had done not of His own private authority, but by God's commission, and that He had spoken to the world only such things as the Father had taught and appointed Him to speak. But whether our Lord meant that His hearers would really believe with the heart and really confess His Messiahship, or that they would know it too late and be convinced when the day of grace was past and gone, is a nice and difficult question. My own opinion, judging from the context and the analogy of other places, is in favor of the latter view: viz., that our Lord predicted the Jewish nation would know the truth and discover their own mistake too late. I think so because our Lord seems so frequently to allude to the light which would come on the minds of the Jewish nation at large after His death. They would be convinced though not converted. Chrysostom thinks that our Lord meant, "Do you expect that you shall certainly rid yourselves of Me, and slay Me? I tell you that then ye shall most surely know that I am, by reason of the miracle of my resurrection, and the destruction of Jerusalem. When ye have been driven away from your place of worship, and it is not even allowed you to serve God as hitherto, then ye shall know that He doth this to avenge Me, and because He is wroth with those who would not hear Me." Augustine takes the other side, and says: "Without doubt Jesus saw there some whom He knew, in His foreknowledge He had elected together with His other saints before the foundation of the world, that after His passion they should believe." Euthymius, agreeing with Chrysostom, remarks how the crowds that saw our Lord crucified, and returned home smiting their breasts,— the centurion who superintended His crucifixion,— the chief priests who tried in vain to stifle the report of His resurrection,— and Josephus the historian, who attributed the misfortunes of the nation to their murder of Christ,— were all witnesses to the truth of this verse. When too late they knew who our Lord was. (4) Alford thinks that the words admit of a double fulfillment, and that the Jews were to "know" that Jesus was the Christ, in two different ways. Some would know by being converted, some by being punished and judged. The expression "lifted up," both here and elsewhere in John's Gospel, can mean nothing but our Lord's crucifixion and lifting up on the cross. (John 3:14, and John 12:32.) It is never used in any other sense, and the modern habit of talking of Christ as "lifted up," when magnified and exalted in the pulpit, is a total misapprehension, and a play upon words. Rollock and others think that the phrase "lifted up" may fairly include all the consequences and effects of our Lord's crucifixion, such as His second advent to judge the world, and that this will be the time when the unbelieving will at last know and be convinced that Christ is Lord of all. But the idea seems far-fetched. The expression "then ye shall know" may possibly refer both to our Lord's resurrection as well as His crucifixion. Certainly the rising again from the dead silenced our Lord's enemies in a way that nothing else ever did. The expression "that I am he," here as elsewhere, might be equally well rendered "that I am;" that I am the great "I AM," the Messiah. The phrase "that I do nothing of myself" is the same that we have had frequently before, as in John 5:19, John 5:30. It means "that I do nothing of My own independent authority." The reference is to the perfect union between the Son and the Father. The expression, "as my Father hath taught Me I speak these things," again bears special reference to the divine commission of our Lord and the perfect union between Himself and His Father. "I do not speak the things I speak of Myself and by My own authority only. I speak nothing but what my Father has taught, commissioned, and appointed Me to speak." (Compare John 8:7, John 8:16, and John 8:26 of this chapter.) Augustine says here: "Do not as it were represent to yourselves two men, the one father, the other son, and the father speaking to the son, as thou doest when thou sayest certain words to thy son, advising and instructing him how to speak, that whatever he has heard from thee he may commit to memory, and having committed to memory utter also with the tongue. Do not so conceive. Stature and motion of the body, the office of the tongue, distinction of sounds, do not go about to conceive them in the Trinity." Again: "Incorporeally the Father spake to the Son, because incorporeally the Father begat the Son. And He taught him not as if He had begotten Him ignorant and in need of teaching; but this 'taught' is the same as begat Him knowing." v29.—[And He that sent Me, etc.] This verse contains once more that deep and oft-repeated truth, the entire unity between God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the consequent entire and complete harmony between the mind of the Father and the mind of the Son. It contains moreover that entire and complete performance of the Father's will by the Son, and that perfect righteousness, obedience, and holiness, wherewith the Father is well-pleased. When we read such words as "he that sent Me is with Me," and "hath not left Me alone," we must remember that there is much in them which we cannot fully explain. We must be content to believe that the Father was "with" the Son, and never "left" Him during the whole period of His incarnation, in an ineffable and inscrutable manner. Perhaps also there is a reference to Isaiah 50:7-9. Augustine remarks: "Albeit both are together, yet one was sent, and the other did send. The Father sent the Son, yet quitted not the Son." When we read such words as "I do always those things that please Him," we must see in the expression a description of that spotless perfection with which the Son during His incarnation constantly pleased the eternal Father. Let Christians never forget the practical lesson that in this verse, as in many other places, Christ is their example and their encouragement. Like Him, however short they may come, let them aim at "always doing what pleases God." Like Him, let them be sure that so doing they will find the Father "with them," and will never be left quite "alone." Calvin remarks: "This is the courage with which we ought to be animated in the present day, that we may not give way on account of the small number of believers: for though the whole world be opposed to His doctrine, still we are not alone. Hence it is evident how foolish is the boasting of the Papists, who, while they neglect God, proudly boast of their vast numbers." v30.—[As He spake these words, many believed on Him.] There can be little doubt that "these words" in this place, refer to the whole discourse which was delivered at this time, and not to the single verse which immediately precedes this one. It is possible that the reference to Isaiah 50:7-9, may have brought light to the Jews' minds, and explained our Lord's relation to the Father, and His claim to be received as the Messiah.— Otherwise it is not very clear what it was that made "many believe" on Him at this juncture. There is, however, no reason to think that the "belief" here was anything more than a head belief that our Lord was the Messiah. That many did so believe whose hearts remained unchanged, there can be little doubt. The same expression occurs at John 10:42, and John 11:45, and John 12:42. The extent to which men may be intellectually convinced of the truth of religion, and know their duty, while their hearts are unrenewed, and they continue in sin, is one of the most painful phenomena in the history of human nature. Let us never be content with believing things to be true, without a personal laying hold on the living Person, Christ Jesus, and actually following Him. Chrysostom observes, "They believed, yet not as they ought, but carelessly and by chance, being pleased and refreshed by the humility of the words. For that they had not perfect faith, the Evangelist shows by their speeches after this, in which they insult him again. Theophylact, Zwingle, and Calvin take the same view. THESE verses show us, for one thing, the importance of steady perseverance in Christ's service. There were many, it seems, at this particular period, who professed to believe on our Lord, and expressed a desire to become His disciples. There is nothing to show that they had true faith. They appear to have acted under the influence of temporary excitement, without considering what they were doing. And to them our Lord addresses this instructive warning,—"If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed." This sentence contains a mine of wisdom. To make a beginning in religious life is comparatively easy. Not a few mixed motives assist us. The love of novelty, the praise of well-meaning but indiscreet professors, the secret self-satisfaction of feeling "how good I am," the universal excitement attending a new position,—all these things combine to aid the young beginner. Aided by them he begins to run the race that leads to heaven, lays aside many bad habits, takes up many good ones, has many comfortable frames and feelings, and gets on swimmingly for a time. But when the newness of his position is past and gone, when the freshness of his feelings is rubbed off and lost, when the world and the devil begin to pull hard at him, when the weakness of his own heart begins to appear,—then it is that he finds out the real difficulties of vital Christianity. Then it is that he discovers the deep wisdom of our Lord's saying now before us. It is not beginning, but "continuing" a religious profession, that is the test of true grace. We should remember these things in forming our estimate of other people's religion. No doubt we ought to be thankful when we see any one ceasing to do evil and learning to do well. We must not "despise the day of small things." (Zechariah 4:10.) But we must not forget that to begin is one thing, and to go on is quite another. Patient continuance in well-doing is the only sure evidence of grace. Not he that runs fast and furiously at first, but he that keeps up his speed, is he that "runs so as to obtain." By all means let us be hopeful when we see anything like conversion. But let us not make too sure that it is real conversion, until time has set its seal upon it. Time and wear test metals, and prove whether they are solid or plated. Time and wear, in like manner, are the surest tests of a man's religion. Where there is spiritual life there will be continuance and steady perseverance. It is the man who goes on as well as begins, that is "the disciple indeed." These verses show us, for another thing, the nature of true slavery. The Jews were fond of boasting, though without any just cause, that they were politically free, and were not in bondage to any foreign power. Our Lord reminds them that there was another bondage to which they were giving no heed, although enslaved by it.—"He that commiteth sin is the servant of sin." How true that is! How many on every side are thorough slaves, although they do not acknowledge it! They are led captive by their besetting corruptions and infirmities, and seem to have no power to get free. Ambition, the love of money, the passion for drink, the craving for pleasure and excitement, gambling, gluttony, illicit connections,—all these are so many tyrants among men. Each and all have crowds of unhappy prisoners bound hand and foot in their chains. The wretched prisoners will not allow their bondage. They will even boast sometimes that they are eminently free. But many of them know better. There are times when the iron enters into their souls, and they feel bitterly that they are slaves. There is no slavery like this. Sin is indeed the hardest of all taskmasters. Misery and disappointment by the way, despair and hell in the end,—these are the only wages that sin pays to its servants. To deliver men from this bondage, is the grand object of the Gospel. To awaken people to a sense of their degradation, to show them their chains, to make them arise and struggle to be free,—this is the great end for which Christ sent forth His ministers. Happy is he who has opened his eyes and found out his danger. To know that we are being led captive, is the very first step toward deliverance. These verses, show us, lastly, the nature of true liberty. Our Lord declares this to the Jews in one comprehensive sentence. He says, "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." Liberty, most Englishmen know, is rightly esteemed one of the highest temporal blessings. Freedom from foreign dominion, a free constitution, free trade, a free press, civil and religious liberty,—what a world of meaning lies beneath these phrases! How many would sacrifice life and fortune to maintain the things which they represent! Yet, after all our boasting, there are many so-called freemen who are nothing better than slaves. There are many who are totally ignorant of the highest, purest form of liberty. The noblest liberty is that which is the property of the true Christian. Those only are perfectly free people whom the Son of God "makes free." All else will sooner or later be found slaves. Wherein does the liberty of true Christians consist? Of what is their freedom made up?—They are freed from the guilt and consequences of sin by the blood of Christ. Justified, pardoned, forgiven, they can look forward boldly to the day of judgment, and cry "Who shall lay anything to our charge? Who is he that condemneth?"—They are freed from the power of sin by the grace of Christ's Spirit. Sin has no longer dominion over them. Renewed, converted, sanctified, they mortify and tread down sin, and are no longer led captive by it.—Liberty, like this, is the portion of all true Christians in the day that they flee to Christ by faith, and commit their souls to Him. That day they become free men. Liberty, like this, is their portion for evermore. Death cannot stop it. The grave cannot even hold their bodies for more than a little season. Those whom Christ makes free are free to all eternity. Let us never rest till we have some personal experience of this freedom ourselves. Without it all other freedom is a worthless privilege. Free speech, free laws, political freedom, commercial freedom, national freedom,—all these cannot smooth down a dying pillow, or disarm death of his sting, or fill our consciences with peace. Nothing can do that but the freedom which Christ alone bestows. He gives it freely to all who seek it humbly. Then let us never rest till it is our own. ================== Notes— v31.—[Then Jesus said...Jews...believed...Him.] It is clear, I think, from the tone of the conversation that runs from this verse uninterruptedly to the end of the chapter, that this "believing" was not faith of the heart. These Jews only "believed" that our Lord was One sent from heaven, and deserved attention. But they were the same Jews to whom He says by and by, "Ye are of your father the devil." [If ye continue...my word...disciples indeed.] This sentence does not mean that these Jews had really begun to receive Christ's word into their hearts. Such a sense would be contradictory to the context. It must mean: "If you take up a firm stand on that Gospel and Word of Truth which I have come to proclaim, and go on sticking firmly to it in your hearts and lives, not merely convinced and wishing, but actually following Me, then you are truly My disciples."— The word rendered "indeed" is more literally, "truly." The converse throws light on our Lord's meaning: "You are not truly disciples, unless you continue steadfast in My doctrine." Our Lord teaches the great principle, that steady continuance is the only real and safe proof of discipleship. No perseverance, no grace! No continuance in the word, no real faith and conversion! This is one of the meeting-points between Calvinist and Arminian. He that has true grace will not fall away. He that falls away has no true grace, and must not flatter himself he is a disciple. Let us note that it is not the "word continuing in us," but "our continuing in the word," which makes us true disciples. The distinction is very important. The word "might continue in us," and not be seen. If we "continue in the word," our lives will show it. In John 15:7 we have both expressions together: "If ye abide in Me, and my words abide in you." v32.—[And ye shall know the truth.] The expression, "the truth," here cannot, I think, mean the Personal Truth, the Messiah. It must be the whole doctrinal truth concerning Myself, My nature, My mission, and My Gospel. Steady continuance in My service shall lead to clear knowledge. It is a parallel saying to the sentence, "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." (John 7:17.) Honest obedience and steady perseverance in acting up to our light, and doing what we learn, are one grand secret of obtaining more knowledge. Chrysostom however thinks that our Lord means by "truth," Himself. "Ye shall know Me, for I am the truth." So also Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius, and Lampe. [The truth shall make you free.] This freedom can only mean spiritual freedom,— freedom from the guilt, burden, and dominion of sin,— freedom from the heavy yoke of Pharisaism, under which many Jews were laboring and heavy laden. (Matthew 11:28.) "The Gospel I preach, and its good news, shall deliver you from spiritual bondage, and make you feel like men set at liberty." I think these words must have been spoken with special reference to the bondage and spiritual slavery in which the Jews were kept by their principal teachers, when our Lord came among them. In the synagogue at Nazareth He had said, that He came "to preach deliverance to the captives." (Luke 4:18.) This, however, is the first place in the Gospels where He openly declares that His Gospel will give men freedom. Until truth comes into a man's heart, he never really knows what it is to feel true spiritual liberty. Augustine says, "To Christ let us all flee. Against sin let us call on God to interpose as our Liberator. Let us ask to be taken on sale, that we may be redeemed by His blood." v33.—[They answered, We be Abraham's seed.] Here we see the usual pride of carnal descent coming out in the Jewish mind. It is just what John the Baptist told them when he preached, "Think not to say that we have Abraham to our father." (Matthew 3:9.) [And were never in bondage to any man.] This is the blindness of pride in its strongest form. The seed of Abraham were in bondage to the Egyptians and Babylonians for many years, to say nothing of the frequent bondages to Philistines, and other nations, as recorded in the book of Judges. Even now, while they spoke, they were in subjection to the Romans. The power of self-deception in unconverted man is infinite. These Jews were not more unreasonable than many now-a-days, who say, "We are not dead in sin,— we have grace, we have faith, we are regenerate, we have the Spirit," while their lives show plainly that they are totally mistaken. [How sayest thou...made free?] This question was partly asked in anger and resentment, and partly in curiosity. Angry as the Jews were at the idea of being subject to any one, they yet caught at the expression "be made free." It made them think of the glorious kingdom of Messiah, foretold in the Prophets.— "Art Thou going to restore the kingdom to Israel? Art Thou going to set us free from the Romans?" We should observe here, as elsewhere, the readiness of our Lord's hearers to put a carnal sense on spiritual language. Nicodemus misunderstanding the new birth, the Samaritan woman and the living waters, the Capernaites and the bread from heaven, are all illustrations of what I mean. (See John 3:4; John 4:11; John 6:34.) Pearce thinks the Jews here spoke of themselves individually, and not of the Jewish nation. Yet surely, even when they spoke, they were subject to the Romans. Henry observes: "Carnal hearts are sensible of no other grievances than those that molest the body and injure their secular affairs. Talk to them of encroachments on their civil liberty and property,— tell of waste committed on their lands, or damage done to their houses, and they understand you very well, and can give you a sensible answer: the thing touches and affects them. But discourse to them of the bondage of sin, or captivity to Satan, and a liberty by Christ,— tell them of wrong done to their souls, and you bring strange things to them." v34.—[Jesus answered, etc.] In this verse our Lord shows His hearers what kind of freedom He had meant, by showing the kind of slavery from which He wished them to be delivered. Did they ask in what sense He meant they should be made free? Let them know, first of all, that in their present state of mind, wicked, worldly, and unbelieving, they were in a state of bondage. Living in habitual sin they were the "servants of sin." This was a general proposition which they themselves must admit. The man that lived wilfully in habits of sin was acknowledged by all to be the slave of sin. Sin ruled over him, and he was its servant. This was an axiom in religion which they could not dispute, for even heathen philosophers admitted it. (See Romans 6:16-20; 2 Peter 2:19.) "Committeth," we must remember here, does not mean "commits an act of sin," but habitually lives in the commission of sin. It is in this sense that John says, "He that committeth sin is of the devil," and "He that is born of God doth not commit sin." (1 John 3:8-9.) v35.—[And the servant abideth not, etc.] This is a difficult, because a very elliptical verse. The leading object in our Lord's mind seems to be to show the Jews the servile and slavish condition in which they were, so long as they rejected Him, the true Messiah, and the free and elevated position which they would occupy if they would believe in Him and become His disciples.— "At present, living under the bondage of the ceremonial law, and content with it and Pharisaic traditions, you are no better than slaves and servants, liable, like Hagar and Ishmael, to be cast out of God's favor and presence at any moment.— Receiving Me, and believing on Me as the Messiah, you would at once be lifted to the position of sons, and would abide for ever in God's favor, as adopted children and dear sons and daughters.— You know yourselves that the servant has no certain tenure in the house, and may be cast out at any time; while the son is heir to the father, and has a certain tenure in the house forever.— Know that I wish you to be raised from the relation of servants to that of sons. Now, under the bondage you are in, you are like slaves. Receiving Me and My Gospel you would become children and free." Something like this seems the leading idea in our Lord's mind. But it is vain to deny that it is a dark and difficult sentence, and requires much filling up and paraphrasing to complete its meaning. The simplest plan is to take it as a parenthesis. It then becomes a comment on the word "servant," which to a Jew, familiar with the story of Hagar and Ishmael, would be very instructive, and would convey the latent thought that our Lord wished them to be not servants but sons. I cannot for a moment think that "the Son" in the last clause means the Son of God, or that the whole clause was meant to teach His eternity. It is certainly possible that a deep mystical sense may lie under the words "servant" and "son" in this verse. "Servant" may mean the Jew, content with the inferior and servile religion of Moses. "Son" may mean the believer in Christ, who receives the adoption and enjoys Gospel liberty. He that is content with Judaism will find his system and religion soon pass away. He that enters into Christ's service will find himself a son for ever. But this is at best only conjectural, and a somewhat questionable interpretation. One thing, at any rate, is very clear to my mind. The latent thought in our Lord's mind is a reference to the story of Hagar and her son Ishmael being cast out as bond-servants, while Isaac the son and heir abode in the house. He wished to impress on His hearers' minds, that he desired them, like Isaac, to have the privilege of sons forever, and to be free to all eternity. Keeping this thought in view, and regarding the verse as a parenthesis, its difficulties are not insuperable. Chrysostom says: " 'Abideth not' means 'hath not power to grant favors, as not being master of the house;' but the son is master of the house." The Jewish priests were the servants, and Christ was the Son. The priests had no power to set free; the Son of God had. Theophylact and Euthymius take the same view. Maldonatus calls attention to the expression in Hebrews, where Moses and Christ are put in contrast, and each in connection with the word "house," Moses as a servant, Christ as a Son. Paul certainly seems there to refer to this passage. (Hebrews 3:2, Hebrews 3:5-6.) v36.—[If the Son shall make you free, etc.] In this verse our Lord explains what He had meant by freedom. It was a freedom from sin, its guilt, and power, and consequences, which believers in Him were to receive. "If I, the Son of man, make you free, in the sense of delivering you from the burden of sin, then you will be free indeed!" This was the freedom that He wished them to obtain. Here, as elsewhere, our Lord carefully avoids saying anything to bring on Himself the charge of rebelling against constituted authorities, and of heading a popular rise for liberty. The word rendered "indeed" here is not the word so rendered at John 8:31. Here it means "really, in reality," from the participle of the verb "to be." There it means "truly." Let us not forget in these days that the only liberty which is truly valuable in God's sight is that which Christ gives. All political liberty, however useful for many purposes, is worthless, unless we are children of God, and heirs of the kingdom, by faith in Jesus. He only is perfectly free who is free from sin. All beside are slaves. He that would be free in this fashion has only to apply to Christ for freedom. It is the peculiar office and privilege of the Lord Jesus, to enfranchise forever all who come to Him. Augustine carries the freedom here promised far into the future. He remarks, "When shall there be full and perfect liberty? When there shall be no enemies, when the last enemy shall be destroyed, even death." THERE are things taught in this passage of Scripture which are peculiarly truth for the times. Well would it be for the Churches if all Christians would ponder carefully the matter which it contains. We are taught for one thing the ignorant self-righteousness of the natural man. We find the Jews pluming themselves on their natural descent from Abraham, as if that must needs cover all deficiencies: "Abraham is our father." We find them going even further than this, and claiming to be God's special favorites and God's own family: "We have one Father, even God." They forgot that fleshly relationship to Abraham was useless, unless they shared Abraham's grace. They forgot that God's choice of their father to be head of a favored nation, was never meant to carry salvation to the children, unless they walked in their father's footsteps. All this in their blind self-conceit they refused to see. "We are Jews. We are God's children. We are the true Church. We are in the covenant. We must be all right." This was their whole argument! Strange as it may seem, there are multitudes of so-called Christians who are exactly like these Jews. Their whole religion consists of a few notions neither wiser nor better than those propounded by the enemies of our Lord. They will tell you that "they are regular Church people; they have been baptized; they go to the Lord's table;"—but they can tell you no more. Of all the essential doctrines of the Gospel they are totally ignorant. Of faith, and grace, and repentance, and holiness, and spiritual mindedness they know nothing at all. But, forsooth! they are Churchmen, and so they hope to go to heaven! There are myriads in this condition. It sounds sad, but unhappily it is only too true. Let us settle firmly in our minds that connection with a good Church and good ancestors is no proof whatever that we ourselves are in the way to be saved. We need something more than this. We must be joined to Christ himself by a living faith. We must know something experimentally of the work of the Spirit in our hearts. "Church principles," and "sound Churchmanship," are fine words and excellent party cries. But they will not deliver our souls from "the wrath to come," or give us boldness in the day of judgment. We are taught for another thing the true marks of spiritual sonship. Our Lord makes this point most plain by two mighty sayings. Did the Jews say, "We have Abraham to our father"? He replies, "If ye were Abraham's children ye would do the work of Abraham."—Did the Jews say, "We have one Father, even God"? He replies, "If God were your Father ye would love Me." Let these two sayings of Christ sink down into our hearts. They supply an answer to two of the most mischievous, yet most common, errors of the present day. What more common, on one side, than vague talk about the universal Fatherhood of God? "All men," we are told, "are God's children, whatever be their creed or religion: all are finally to have a place in the Father's house, "where there are many mansions."—What more common, on another side, than high-sounding statements about the effect of baptism and the privileges of Church-membership? "By baptism," we are confidently told, "all baptized people are made children of God; all members of the Church, without distinction, have a right to be addressed as sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty." Statements like these can never be reconciled with the plain language of our Lord in the passage before us. If words mean anything, no man is really a child of God, who does not love Jesus Christ. The charitable judgment of a baptismal service, or the hopeful estimate of a catechism, may call him by the name of a son, and reckon him among God's children. But the reality of sonship to God, and all its blessings, no one possesses who does not love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. (Ephesians 6:24.) In matters like these we need not be shaken by mere assertions. We may well afford to despise the charge of undervaluing the sacraments. We have only to ask one question: "What is written? What saith the Lord?" And with this saying before us, we can only come to one conclusion: "Where there is no love to Christ, there is no sonship to God." We are taught, lastly, in these verses, the reality and character of the devil. Our Lord speaks of him as one whose personality and existence are beyond dispute. In solemn words of stern rebuke He says to His unbelieving enemies, "Ye are of your father the devil"—led by him, doing his will, and showing unhappily that you are like him. And then He paints his picture in dark colors, describing him as a "murderer" from the beginning, as a "liar" and the father of lies. There is a devil! We have a mighty invisible enemy always near us,—one who never slumbers and never sleeps,—one who is about our path and about our bed, and spies out all our ways, and will never leave us till we die.—He is a murderer! His great aim and object is to ruin us for ever and kill our souls. To destroy, to rob us of eternal life, to bring us down to the second death in hell, are the things for which he is unceasingly working. He is ever going about, seeking whom he may devour.—He is a liar! He is continually trying to deceive us by false representations, just as he deceived Eve at the beginning. He is always telling us that good is evil and evil good,—truth is falsehood and falsehood truth,—the broad way good and the narrow way bad. Millions are led captive by his deceit, and follow him, both rich and poor, both high and low, both learned and unlearned. Lies are his chosen weapons. By lies he slays many. These are awful things; but they are true. Let us live as if we believed them. Let us not be like many who mock, and sneer, and scoff, and deny the existence of the very being who is invisibly leading them to hell. Let us believe there is a devil, and watch, and pray, and fight hard against his temptations. Strong as he is, there is One stronger than he, who said to Peter, "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not," and who still intercedes at God's right hand. Let us commit our souls to Him. (Luke 22:32; 1 Peter 4:19.) With such a being as the devil going to and fro in the world, we never need wonder to see evil abounding. But with Christ on our side, we need not be afraid. Greater is He that is for us, than he that is against us. It is written, "Resist the devil, and he shall flee from you."—"The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly." (James 4:7; Romans 16:20.) ================== Notes— v37.—[I know that ye are Abraham's seed.] In this verse our Lord takes up the arrogant boast of the Jews, that they were Abraham's seed. He had replied to their assertion, "We were never in bondage to any man," by showing the nature of true bondage and true liberty. He now returns to their opening saying, "We be Abraham's seed," and begins by telling them that He knew, and fully admitted, their carnal descent from Abraham. [But ye seek to kill me.] This must mean, "Your relation to Abraham does you no good, for ye are seeking to murder Me at this very moment, though I have come to fulfill the promises made to Abraham." Here, as well as at John 8:40, and John 7:19, our Lord shows His perfect knowledge of all the designs of His enemies. He gives us an example of steady perseverance in God's work, even though we know our lives are in peril. [Because my word hath no place in you.] This means, "Because the Gospel I preach, the message I brought from my Father, makes no way or progress in your hearts, or among you."— The Greek word, which our translators have rendered "hath place," is never so rendered elsewhere. The idea here seems to be that of "going forward, spreading, and marching on." This describes literally the condition of many who hear Christ's word in every age. It seems to come to a dead stand-still or halt in their hearts, and to make no way with them. v38.—[I speak that, etc.] The sense of this verse appears to be filled up thus: "The truth is, that there is an entire gulf and breach between you and Me. I speak, and am ever speaking, the doctrine which I have seen with my Father, in our eternal councils about mankind, and which I am sent by Him to proclaim to the world. You, on the other hand, do and are always doing the things which your father the devil presents to your minds, and which you have seen and imbibed into your characters, under his influence." When our Lord speaks of what He has "seen" with His Father, we must remember, as elsewhere, that He uses language accommodated to our weak capacities, to describe the relation between Himself and the first Person in the Trinity. Compare John 3:32 and John 5:19. There can be no doubt that the "father" of the Jews, to whom our Lord here refers, is "the devil," when we read the verses following. It conveys an awful idea of the state of unbelieving and wicked men, that they are doing what they have seen and learned from the devil. There may, however, be special reference to the design of the Jews to kill Christ. Our Lord's meaning may be, "Ye are doing what ye have seen with the devil your father. He has suggested to you to kill Me, and you are listening to his suggestion." v39.—[They answered...Abraham is our Father.] This is a repetition of what the Jews had already said. Startled at what our Lord said about their "father," they reassert emphatically their relationship to Abraham.— "What do you mean by thus speaking of our father? Abraham is our father." [Jesus saith...if ye were Abraham's children...works of Abraham.] Our Lord here tells them that it is possible to be Abraham's children according to the flesh, and yet not Abraham's children according to the Spirit.— "If ye were true spiritual descendants of Abraham, you would show it by doing such things as Abraham did. Your works would be like his, because springing from a like faith." The distinction here drawn by our Lord is a very important one for Christians to notice. The utter uselessness of carnal relationship, or formal outward succession, is a truth which man does not like to admit, but one that needs to be constantly taught in the Churches. How common to hear men say, "we belong to the one true Church; we are in the direct succession from the Apostles." Such claims are utterly useless, if not accompanied by "works." We must never forget the importance of "works," if put in their right place. They cannot justify us. They are at best full of imperfection. But they are useful evidences, and serve to show whose we are, and what our religion is worth. v40.—[But now ye seek to kill Me, etc.] Our Lord in this verse confirms the charge made in the preceding one,— that His enemies were not Abraham's spiritual children, although carnally descended from Abraham.— "At this very moment you are wishing and endeavoring to put Me to death, not for any crime, but simply because I have spoken to you that mighty message of truth which I heard from My Father, and am sent to proclaim to the world as the Messiah. This is the very opposite of what your great forefather Abraham would have done. He longed to see My day. He rejoiced in the prospect of it. He would have hailed My appearance and message with delight. Your conduct, therefore, is an unanswerable proof that you are not Abraham's spiritual children." Our Lord's argument is the same that Paul uses to the Romans. "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly."— "They which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God." (Romans 2:28-29; Romans 9:8.) The importance of it cannot be overrated. It establishes the great principle that fleshly relationship, or ecclesiastical connection, is nothing without grace in the heart, and indeed only adds to a man's condemnation. The expression "this did not Abraham" is a Hebraism. Of course literally Abraham could not "seek to kill" Christ, because he never lived with Him on earth. The meaning must be "Your conduct is the very opposite of what Abraham would have done, and utterly contrary to the general tenor of what he did while he lived." Compare Deuteronomy 17:3; Jeremiah 7:22-31; Jeremiah 19:5; Jeremiah 32:35, where the same form of speech is used. When our Lord calls Himself here simply "a man," He uses an expression which He nowhere else employs in the Gospels. As a rule, He calls Himself "the Son of man," when speaking of His human nature. Here, however, He seems to speak of Himself in the point of view in which His unbelieving enemies ought to have regarded Him, if they could not yet acknowledge His divinity. "I am among you a man speaking the truth: and yet ye seek to kill Me."— The attempt of Jews and Socinians to show that our Lord was not really God, founded on this text, is futile. Our Lord's real and true humanity no sound Trinitarian thinks of denying. v41.—[Ye do the deeds of your father.] This means "You are doing the things that your father the devil approves and suggests to you. You are showing yourselves genuine children of the devil, by doing his works." The word "ye" in the Greek is emphatic, and may possibly be intended to contrast with "I," at the beginning of Joh 8:38. [Then said they...not born of fornication.] These words can hardly be taken literally. Our Lord was speaking to the Jews not as individuals, but as a nation and a class, and was speaking of their descent in a religious point of view. The question was, "Who was their father? From whom did they get their spiritual character? To whom were their proclivities and tendencies to be traced?" This our Lord's hearers understood, and said, "We be not born of fornication; we are not heathens and idolaters at any rate, even if we are not as good as Abraham."— That idolatry was called fornication, because it was unfaithfulness to the covenant God, a forsaking Him for false gods, is, I think, clear from many places in the Old Testament. See for instance Jeremiah 2:1-20, and Jeremiah 3:1-3. I think this was in the minds of the Jews when they spoke to our Lord here. This is Augustine's view. The notion of Euthymius, Rupertus, and others, that the Jews refer to other children of Abraham, by Hagar and Keturah, and boast themselves his true children by Sarah, is not satisfactory. It is surely too much to charge Abraham with the sin of fornication because he took Hagar to be his wife, at the instance [insistance?] of Sarah, and married Keturah after Sarah's death! The notion of some, that the Jews refer here to the many marriages between Jews and Gentiles in the Old Testament times (as seen in Ezra 10:1-3, etc.), and repudiate them, is not probable. Some have thought that the Jews insinuated wicked doubts of our Lord's legitimate birth in this phrase. But it seems unlikely. [We have one Father, even God.] The Jews here lay claim to be regarded as God's children. That God is called "the Father" of Israel in several places in the Old Testament, is undeniable. See Deuteronomy 32:6; 1 Chronicles 29:10; Isaiah 63:16 and Isaiah 64:8; Malachi 1:6. But it is very clear that these texts specially refer to God's relation to Israel as a nation, and not to Israelites as individuals. The Jews, however, in their pride and self-righteousness, made no such nice distinction. They did not see that national sonship and covenant sonship without spiritual sonship, are nothing worth. Hence they brought on themselves the stern rebuke of the next verse. v42.—[Jesus said...If God...your Father...love me.] Our Lord here tells the Jews, that although they might be children of God by covenant and nationality, they were evidently not God's children by grace and spiritual birth. If God was really their Father, they would show it by loving the Son of God, even Himself. Let us note carefully the great principle contained in this sentence. Love to Christ is the infallible mark of all true children of God. Would we know whether we are born again, whether we are children of God? There is one simple way of finding it out. Do we love Christ? If not, it is vain and idle to talk of God as our Father, and ourselves as God's Children. No love to Christ, no sonship to God! The favorite notion of many, that baptism makes us sons and daughters of God, and that all baptized people should be addressed as God's children, is utterly irreconcilable with this sentence. Unless a baptized person loves Christ, he has no right to call God Father, and is not God's child. He has yet to be born again, and brought into God's family. Before the point and edge of these words, the doctrine that spiritual regeneration always accompanies baptism cannot stand. The modern notion about God's universal Fatherhood, which finds such favor with many, is no less irreconcilable with this sentence than baptismal regeneration. That God the Father is full of love, mercy, and compassion to all is no doubt true. But that God is really and truly the spiritual Father of any one who does not love Christ can never be maintained without contradicting our Lord's words in this place. The sentence is full of condemnation to all who know nothing experimentally of Christ, and neither think, nor feel, nor care anything about Him. Crowds of so-called Christians are in this unhappy state, and are plainly not God's children, whatever they may think.— The sentence is equally full of comfort for all true believers, however weak and feeble. If they feel drawn towards Christ in heart and affection, and can truly say "I do love Him," they have the plainest mark of being God's children, and "if children then heirs." (Romans 8:17.) [For I proceeded forth, etc.] Our Lord here shows the Jews His own divine nature and mission. He had proceeded forth, and come from God— the eternal Son from the eternal Father. He had not come of His own independent will and without commission, but specially sent and appointed by the Father, as His last and dearest Messenger to a lost world. Such was His nature. Such was His position and relation to the Father.— If therefore they really were children of God the Father, they would love Him as the Father's Son, the Father's Messenger, the Father's promised Messiah. Not loving Him, they gave the plainest proof that they were not God's children.— A true child of God will love everything belonging to God, and specially he will love God's only begotten and beloved Son. He can see and find nothing nearer to the Father than the Son, who is the "brightness of His glory and the express image of His person." (Hebrews 1:3.) If, therefore, he does not love the Son, it is clear that he is no true child of the Father. Calvin remarks, "Christ's argument is this: whoever is a child of God will acknowledge his first-born Son; but you hate Me, and therefore you have no reason to boast that you are God's children. We ought carefully to observe in this passage, that there is no piety and no fear of God where Christ is rejected. Hypocritical religion presumptuously shelters itself under the name of God; but how can they agree with the Father, who disagree with His only Son?" v43.—[Why do ye not understand? etc.] In this verse, our Lord seems to me to draw a distinction between "speech" and "word." The expression "word" is deeper than "speech." By "speech," He means "My manner of speaking and expressing myself." By "word," He means generally "My doctrine."— The sense is, "How is it that ye do not understand My manner of expressing Myself to you, when I speak of such things as "freedom" and of 'your father'? It is because ye will not receive and attend to My whole message,— the word that I bring to you from My Father."— Lightfoot takes this view. This explanation seems to me to describe most accurately the state of things between our Lord and His hearers. They were continually misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and stumbling at, the expressions and language that He used in teaching them. Did He speak of "bread"? They thought He meant literal bread.— Did He speak of "freedom"? They thought He meant temporal and political freedom.— Did He speak of "their Father"? They thought He meant Abraham.— How was it that they so misunderstood His language and dialect? It was simply because their hearts were utterly hardened and closed against the whole "word of salvation" which He came to proclaim. Having no will to listen to and receive His doctrine, they were ready at every step to misconstrue the words and figures under which it was conveyed and placed before them. Any one who preaches the Gospel now must often observe that precisely the same thing happens in the present day. Hearers, who are strongly prejudiced against the Gospel, are constantly perverting, wresting, and misinterpreting the language of the preacher. None are so blind as those who will not see, and none so stupid as those who do not want to understand. The "cannot" here is a moral inability. It is like "no man can come unto Me," and "His brethren could not speak peaceably unto him." (John 6:44; Genesis 37:4.) It means, "Ye have no will to hear with your hearts." Chrysostom remarks: "Not to be able here means not to be willing." v44.—[Ye are of your father the devil, etc.] This verse deserves special attention, both for the sternness of the rebuke it contains, and the deep subject which it handles. The general sense is as follows: "Ye are so far from being spiritual children of Abraham, or true children of God, that, on the contrary, ye may be rightly called the children of the devil; and ye show it, by having a will set on doing the evil things which your father suggests to you. He, from the beginning of creation, was a being set on the destruction of man, and abode not in the original truth and righteousness in which he was created; for now truth is not in his nature. When he now speaks and suggests a lie, he speaks out of his own peculiar inward nature, for he is eminently a liar, and the father of a lie." When our Lord says to the wicked Jews, "Ye are of your father the devil," He does not mean that the wicked are made wicked by the devil in the same sense that the godly are made godly by God, created anew and begotten of God; but He uses a common Hebraism, by which persons who are closely connected with, or entirely under the influence of, another, are called "his children." It is in this sense that the wicked and unbelieving are truly the children of the devil. This must be carefully remembered. The devil has no power to "create" the wicked. He only finds them born in sin, and, working upon their sinful nature, obtains such an influence, that he becomes practically the "father of the wicked." (See Matthew 13:38 and 1 John 3:10; Matthew 13:19; Luke 16:8; Luke 20:34; Isaiah 57:4; Numbers 17:10.) Augustine says: "Whence are those Jews sons of the devil?— By imitation, not by birth." He also refers to Ezekiel 16:3, as a parallel case. When our Lord says, "Ye will do the lusts of your father," we must remember that "ye will" is emphatic in the Greek. "Ye have a will, and mind, and purpose, and disposition."— By "doing the lusts," He means "ye follow those evil inclinations and desires" which are peculiarly characteristic of the devil, and according to his mind,— such as to commit murder, and to love and tell a lie. The desire of the devil can only be for that which is evil. When our Lord says the devil was a "murderer from the beginning," I do not think He refers exclusively to Cain's murder of Abel, though I think it was in His mind. (See 1 John 3:12.) I rather think He means that the devil, from the beginning of creation, was set on bringing death into the world, and murdering man both body and soul. Origen remarks: "It was not one man only that the devil killed, but the whole human race, inasmuch as in Adam all die. So that he is truly called a murderer." When our Lord says that the "devil abode not in the truth," I think He teaches that the devil is a fallen spirit, and that he was originally made very good and "perfect," like all other works of God's hands. But he did not continue in that state of truth and righteousness in which he was originally created. He kept not his first estate, but fell away. "Truth" seems to stand for all righteousness, and holiness, and conformity to the mind of God, who is "Truth itself." This verse, and Jude 1:6, are the two clearest proofs in the Bible that the devil fell, and was not created evil at the beginning. The word "abode" would be more literally rendered, "stood." When our Lord says, "Because there is no truth in him," He does not mean that this was the reason why the devil "abode not in the truth." If this had been His meaning, He would have said, "Truth was not in him." But He says, "is."— His words are meant to describe the present nature of the devil. "He is now a being in whom truth is not."— It seems to me a somewhat similar expression to that of Paul, when he says, "I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly;" where "because" does not mean the reason why he obtained mercy. (1 Timothy 1:13.) The Greek word for "because" in both cases is the same. Calvin remarks: "As we are called the children of God, not only because we resemble Him, but because He governs us by His Spirit,— because Christ lives and is vigorous in us, so as to conform us to His Father's image; so, on the other hand, the devil is said to be the father of those whose understandings he blinds, whose hearts he moves to commit all unrighteousness, and on whom, in short, he acts powerfully, and exercises his tyranny." When our Lord says that "the devil speaketh of his own," He does not mean that he "speaks about his own," but that he speaks "out of his own things." It is like, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Matthew 12:34.) He speaks out of those things of which he is full. When our Lord says that the devil "is a liar," I think He refers to the great original lie by which he deceived Eve at the beginning, "Ye shall not surely die." (Genesis 3:4.) When our Lord says here of the devil, that "he is a liar and the father of it," I think the most likely and natural meaning is, that "he is the father of every lie." A lie is specially the result and work of the devil. The expression "of it," is undeniably difficult, and is variously interpreted. (a) Some think that it means "he is the father of him,"— viz., of the liar, of every one that tells a lie. This is the view of Brentius, Bengel, Stier, Hengstenberg, and Alford. (b) Some think that it means "he is a liar, and his father." This was an error of the Manicheans, and justly reproved by Augustine. Yet Grotius seems to hold this view, and maintains that he who deceived Adam and Eve was not the prince of the devils, but one of his messengers! (See 2 Corinthians 12:7.) This seems an untenable idea. Neither of these views is at all natural and satisfactory,— and the one I have given— "father of a lie"— seems to me much more probable. It is the view of Augustine, Theophylact, Rupertus, Calvin, Bucer, Beza, Bullinger, Rollock, Burgon, Wordsworth, and the great majority of all commentators. Let us note, in this verse, how strongly and directly our Lord rebukes His enemies. There are times when strong condemnation becomes a positive duty, and we must not refrain from it through fear of being charged with severity, personality, and harshness. Let us note how clearly this verse establishes the personality of the devil. The expression before us can never be explained by those who think he is only a vague evil influence. Let us note how the fall of angels is recognized and taught by our Lord, as one of the great truths that we must believe. Let us note how murder and lying are specially mentioned as characteristics of the devil. They are sins most opposite to the mind of God, however lightly regarded— and lying especially— by man. An indifference to the sin of lying, whether among old or young, rich or poor, is one of the most unmistakable symptoms of an ungodly condition. Luther says: "The world is a den of murderers, subject to the devil. If we desire to live on earth, we must be content to be guests in it, and to lie in an inn where the host is a rascal, whose house has over the door this sign or shield, 'For murder and lies.' For this sign and escutcheon Christ Himself hung over the door of his house, when He said, He is a murderer and a liar." v45.—[And because I tell, etc.] Our Lord in this verse puts in strong contrast His own teaching and the lying suggestions of the devil, and the readiness of the wicked Jews to disbelieve Him and believe the devil.— "The reason why you do not believe Me is, your thorough dislike to the truth of God. You are genuine children of your father the devil. If I told you things that are false, ye would believe Me. But because I tell you things that are true, you believe me not." We see here how little cause faithful ministers of Christ have to feel surprise at the unbelief of many of their hearers. If they preach the truth, they must make up their minds not to be believed by many. It is only what happened to their Master. "If they have kept My saying, they will keep your's also." (John 15:20.) v46.—[Which of you convinceth me? etc.] Our Lord in this verse asks two questions, to which it was impossible for them to give an answer: "Which of you can reprove or convince Me as an offender concerning sin of any kind? You know that you cannot lay any offense to my charge. Yet if I am free from any charge, and at the same time speak to you nothing but what is right and true, what is the reason that ye do not believe Me?" Let us note here the perfect spotlessness and innocence of our Lord's character. None but He could ever say, "I have no sin. I challenge any one to find out any imperfection or fault in Me." Such a complete and perfect Sacrifice and Mediator is just what sinful man needs. v47.—[He that is of God, etc.] Our Lord in this verse supplies an answer to His own questions, and conclusively proves the wickedness and ungodliness of His hearers.— "He that is a true child of God hears with pleasure, believes, and obeys God's words, such as I bring to you from My Father. You, by not hearing, believing, and obeying them, prove plainly that you are not God's children. If you were, you would hear gladly, believe, and obey. Your not hearing proves conclusively that you are what I said, children, not of God, but of the devil." Let us note here, that the disposition to hear and listen to truth is always a good sign, though not an infallible one, about a person's soul. It is said, in another place, "My sheep hear my voice." (John 10:16, John 10:27.) When we see people obstinately refusing to listen to counsel, and to attend to the Gospel, we are justified in regarding them as not God's children, not born again, without grace, and needing yet to be converted. Let us note here, as elsewhere, how carefully our Lord speaks of His teaching as "God's words." It consisted of words and truths which God the Father had commissioned Him to preach and proclaim to man. It was not "His own words" only, but His Father's as well as His own. Rollock observes that there is no surer mark of an unsanctified nature than dislike to God's Word. Musculus, Bucer, and others maintain here that the phrase. "He that is of God, heareth God's Words," must be confined to God's election; and means, "He that was chosen of God from all eternity." I cannot, however, see reason for confining the sense so closely. I prefer to consider "of God" as including, not only election, but calling, regeneration, adoption, conversion, and sanctification. This is Rollock's view. WE should observe, first, in this passage, what blasphemous and slanderous language was addressed to our Lord by His enemies. We read that the Jews "said unto Him, Say we not well that Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" Silenced in argument, these wicked men resorted to personal abuse. To lose temper, and call names, is a common sign of a defeated cause. Nicknames, insulting epithets, and violent language, are favorite weapons with the devil. When other means of carrying on his warfare fail, he stirs up his servants to smite with the tongue. Grievous indeed are the sufferings which the saints of God have had to endure from the tongue in every age. Their characters have been slandered. Evil reports have been circulated about them. Lying stories have been diligently invented, and greedily swallowed, about their conduct. No wonder that David said, "Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue." (Psalms 120:2.) The true Christian in the present day must never be surprised to find that he has constant trials to endure from this quarter. Human nature never changes. So long as he serves the world, and walks in the broad way, little perhaps will be said against him. Once let him take up the cross and follow Christ, and there is no lie too monstrous, and no story too absurd, for some to tell against him, and for others to believe. But let him take comfort in the thought that he is only drinking the cup which his blessed Master drank before him. The lies of his enemies do him no injury in heaven, whatever they may on earth. Let him bear them patiently, and not fret, or lose his temper. When Christ was reviled, "He reviled not again." (1 Peter 2:23.) Let the Christian do likewise. We should observe, secondly, what glorious encouragement our Lord holds out to His believing people. We read that He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep My saying, he shall never see death." Of course these words do not mean that true Christians shall never die. On the contrary, we all know that they must go down to the grave, and cross the river just like others. But the words do mean, that they shall not be hurt by the second death,—that final ruin of the whole man in hell, of which the first death is only a faint type or figure. (Revelation 21:8.) And they do mean that the sting of the first death shall be removed from the true Christian. His flesh may fail, and his bones may be racked with strong pain; but the bitter sense of unpardoned sins shall not crush him down. This is the worst part of death,—and in this he shall have the "victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:57.) This blessed promise, we must not forget to notice, is the peculiar property of the man who "keeps Christ's sayings." That expression, it is clear, can never be applicable to the mere outward professing Christian, who neither knows nor cares anything about the Gospel. It belongs to him who receives into his heart, and obeys in his life, the message which the Lord Jesus brought from heaven. It belongs, in short, to those who are Christians, not in name and form only, but in deed and in truth. It is written,—"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." (Revelation 2:11.) We should observe, thirdly, in this passage, what clear knowledge of Christ Abraham possessed. We read that our Lord said to the Jews, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it and was glad." When our Lord used these remarkable words, Abraham had been dead and buried at least 1850 years! And yet he is said to have seen our Lord's day! How wonderful that sounds! Yet it was quite true. Not only did Abraham "see" our Lord and talk to Him when He "appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre," the night before Sodom was destroyed, (Genesis 18:1,) but by faith he looked forward to the day of our Lord's incarnation yet to come, and as he looked he "was glad." That he saw many things, through a glass darkly, we need not doubt. That he could have explained fully the whole manner and circumstances of our Lord's sacrifice on Calvary, we are not obliged to suppose. But we need not shrink from believing that he saw in the far distance a Redeemer, whose advent would finally make all the earth rejoice. And as he saw it, he "was glad." The plain truth is, that we are too apt to forget that there never was but one way of salvation, one Savior, and one hope for sinners, and that Abraham and all the Old Testaments saints looked to the same Christ that we look to ourselves. We shall do well to call to mind the Seventh Article of the Church of England: "The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered through Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises." This is truth that we must never forget in reading the Old Testament. This is sound speech that cannot be condemned. We should observe, lastly, in this prophecy, how distinctly our Lord declares His own pre-existence. We read that He said to the Jews, "Before Abraham was, I am." Without controversy, these remarkable words are a great deep. They contain things which we have no eyes to see through, or mind to fathom. But if language means anything, they teach us that our Lord Jesus Christ existed long before He came into the world. Before the days of Abraham He was. Before man was created He was. In short, they teach us that the Lord Jesus was no mere man like Moses or David. He was One whose goings forth were from everlasting,—the same yesterday, to-day, and forever,—very and eternal God. Deep as these words are, they are full of practical comfort. They show us the length, and breadth, and depth, and height of that great foundation, on which sinners are invited to rest their souls. He to whom the Gospel bids us come with our sins, and believe for pardon and peace, is no mere man. He is nothing less than very God, and therefore "able to save to the uttermost" all who come to Him. Then let us begin coming to Him with confidence. Let us continue leaning on Him without fear. The Lord Jesus Christ is the true God, and our eternal life is secure. ================== Notes— v48.—[Then answered the Jews...Samaritan...devil.] This verse seems to contain nothing but personal abuse and blasphemous slander. Unable to answer our Lord's arguments, the unbelieving Jews lost their temper, and resorted to the last weapon of a disputant,— senseless invective and calling of names. The extent to which calling names is carried by Oriental people, even in the present day, is something far greater than in this country we can imagine. When the Jews called our Lord "a Samaritan," they meant much the same as saying that He was no true Jew, and little better than a heathen. "The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." (John 4:9.) When they said, "Thou hast a devil," I think it meant rather more than "Thou art mad," as in John 7:20, if we observe the following verse. It probably implied, "Thou actest and speakest under the influence of the devil. The power Thou hast is from Satan, and not from God." Let us learn here how little cause Christians have to be surprised if hard names and insulting epithets are applied to them. It is only what was done to their Master, and is no ground for discouragement in doing God's work. v49.—[Jesus answered, I have not a devil, etc.] Our Lord's answer to the coarse invective of His enemies amounts to this: "In saying that I have a devil you say that which is not true. I am simply honoring My Father in heaven by delivering His message to man, and you by your violent language are dishonoring Me, and in effect dishonoring and insulting my Father. Your insults do not strike Me only, but my Father also." Let us note our Lord's calmness and equanimity under insult. A solemn denial of the blasphemous charge laid against Him, and an equally solemn reminder that He was honoring the God whom they themselves professed to worship, are the only reply He condescends to make. v50.—[And I seek not mine own glory.] This sentence seems to arise out of the last verse,— "Ye dishonor Me; but you do not move or hurt Me, for I did not come to seek my own glory, but the glory of Him that sent Me. I receive not honor from men." (See John 7:18 and John 5:41.) Here, as elsewhere, our Lord points to the great principle, "that a true messenger from heaven will never seek his own glory, but his Master's." [There is one that seeketh and judgeth.] There is a very solemn warning in these words. They mean, "There is One, however, even my Father in heaven, who does seek and desire my glory; and not only seeks, but judges the conduct of all who dishonor Me, with deep displeasure, and will punish it at the last day." There is comfort here for all Christ's members as well as for their Head. Though they may not think of it, there is One in heaven who cares deeply for them, sees all they go through, and will one day plead their cause. The latent thought seems the same as in Ecclesiastes 5:8; "He that is higher than the highest regardeth." A believer may cheer himself with the thought, "There is One that judgeth. There is One that sees all, that cares for me, and will set all right at the last day." Euthymius remarks on this verse that we should not heed things said against ourselves, but should vindicate the honor of God if things are said against God. v51.—[Verily...if a man keep my saying...never see death.] The mighty promise contained in this verse seems intended to wind up the whole conversation. All that our Lord had said had produced no effect. He therefore closes His teaching for the present by one of those mighty sayings which tower above everything near them, and of which John's Gospel contain so many.— "Whether you will hear or not, whether you choose to know Me or not, I solemnly tell you that if any man receives, believes, and keeps My doctrine, he shall never see death. Despised and rejected as I am by you, life or death, heaven or hell, blessing or cursing, depend and hinge on accepting the message I proclaim to you. I am the way, the truth, and the life."— It is like Moses taking leave of Israel and saying, "I call heaven and earth to record against you, that I have set before you life and death." (Deuteronomy 30:15, Deuteronomy 30:19.) Just so our Lord seems to say, "I tell you once more, for the last time, that to keep My saying is the way to escape death." The expression is parallel to the one our Lord uses in the synagogue of Capernaum. There He says, "He that believeth in Me hath everlasting life." Here it is "shall never see death." (John 6:47.) We should notice here, as elsewhere, that when our Lord uses the expression, "Verily, verily, I say unto you," which is familiar to all careful readers of John's Gospel, He is always about to say something of peculiar gravity and solemnity. See John 1:51; John 3:3, John 3:5, John 3:11; John 5:19, John 5:24-25; John 6:26, John 6:32, John 6:47, John 6:53; John 8:34, John 8:51, John 8:58; John 10:1, John 10:7; John 12:24; John 13:16, John 13:20-21, John 13:38; John 14:12; John 16:20, John 16:23; John 21:18. The expression "keep my saying," means "receive into his heart, believe, embrace, obey, and hold fast the doctrine or message which I am commissioned to teach."— The phrase "my saying," means much more than the "words I am speaking at this moment." It is rather the whole doctrine of My Gospel. The expression "never see death" cannot be taken literally. Our Lord did not mean that His disciples would not die and be buried, like other children of Adam. We know that they did die. The meaning is probably three-fold: (1) "He shall be completely delivered from that spiritual death of condemnation under which all mankind are born; his soul is alive and can die no more: (2) He shall be delivered from the sting of bodily death; his flesh and bones may sink under disease and be laid in the grave, but the worst part of death shall not be able to touch him, and the grave itself shall give him up one day: (3) He shall be delivered entirely from the second death, even eternal punishment in hell; over him the second death shall have no power." The width and greatness of this promise are very remarkable. Ever since the day of Adam's fall death has been man's peculiar enemy. Man has found the truth of the sentence, "In the day thou eatest thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:17.) But our Lord boldly and openly proclaims that in keeping His saying there is complete deliverance from death. In fact, He proclaims Himself the One greater than death. None could say this but a Redeemer who was very God. Augustine says: "The death from which our Lord came to deliver us was the second death, eternal death, the death of hell, the death of damnation with the devil and his angels. That is indeed death; for this death of ours is only a migration. What is it but a putting off a heavy load, provided there be not another load carried, by which the man shall be cast headlong into hell. This is the death of which the Lord says, 'He shall not see death.' " Let us note the breadth and fullness of this promise. It is for any one who keeps Christ's sayings. "If a man," or rather it should be rendered, "If any man," etc. Let us beware of putting a meaning on this promise which it was not intended to convey. The idea of some that it means "believers shall be so completely delivered from death that they shall neither feel bodily pain nor mental conflict," is one that cannot be supported. It is not borne out by other passages of Scripture, and, as a matter of fact, it is contradicted by experience. The Gospel delivers believers from that "fear of death" which unbelievers feel, no doubt. (Hebrews 2:15.) But we have no right to expect believers to have no bodily conflict, no convulsion, no struggle, and no suffering. Flesh and blood must and will feel. "I groan," said holy Baxter on his deathbed, "but I do not grumble." Death is a serious thing, even though the sting is taken away. Parkhurst thinks the expression here is like Luke 2:26, where it was said of Simeon that he should not "see death." But the Greek for "see" is there a different word, and the phrase there seems to mean nothing more than "die," which does not come up to the full promise here. He also quotes Psalms 49:9; Psalms 89:49. But neither of these places seem parallel. The Greek word rendered "see" is so peculiar that one might almost think the phrase meant, "he shall not gaze upon and behold death for ever to all eternity, as the wicked shall." But I prefer the threefold sense already given. v52.—[Then said the Jews, etc.] The argument of the Jews in this verse seems to be as follows: "We know now by Thy own words that Thou art mad and hast a devil. Our great father Abraham and the prophets, holy and good as they all were, are all dead, and yet Thou presumest to say that if a man keep Thy saying he will never die. In short, Thou makest Thyself greater than Abraham, for Abraham could not escape death, while keeping Thy saying enables a man to escape death. To talk in this way is a plain proof that thou art mad." The phrase "to have a devil," in this place can hardly mean anything but "to be mad or crazy." The Jews, it will be observed, do not quote our Lord's words correctly. He had said, "shall never see death." They report Him as saying, "shall never taste of death." Whether this was a willful perversion of His words is rather difficult to decide. Some think that the Jews intentionally exaggerated the promise, and put "taste" for "see," in order to magnify the offense our Lord had committed. Others think that the difference means nothing, and that it only shows how thoroughly the Jews misunderstood our Lord, and thought that He referred to nothing but bodily death. Here, as elsewhere, we may remark how ready the Jews were to pervert and warp our Lord's meaning, and to put a carnal and gross sense on spiritual language. v53.—[Art thou greater, etc?] The question in this verse shows that our Lord had again succeeded in arousing the curiosity of the Jews, and stirring them to inquire about His nature and person.— "Who art Thou that talkest in this way? Whom dost Thou make Thyself? To say that those who keep Thy saying shall never die is to make Thyself superior to Abraham and the prophets, who are all dead. Who and what art Thou? Art thou really some one greater than Abraham?" Chrysostom observes that the question of the Jews reminds us of the Samaritan woman's question: "Art thou greater than our father Jacob?" (John 4:12.) v54.—[If I honor myself...nothing, etc.] Our Lord's meaning in this verse seems to be as follows: "If at any time I take to myself and claim honor, such honor would be worthless. He who puts honor on Me, and commissions Me to say that keeping My saying shall deliver a man from death, is My Father in heaven,— that very Being whom you profess to call your God. It is your own God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who has put such honor on Me, that life or death turn on keeping My sayings, and believing on Me." Here, as elsewhere, we should mark the carefulness with which our Lord disclaims all self-exaltation, and desire for glory and honor from man. If, in claiming for Himself to hold the keys of life and death, He seemed to claim honor, He carefully reminds the Jews that it is an honor put on Him by the Father in heaven, even by their own God. He desired no honor independent of Him, or in rivalry to Him. When our Lord says, "My Father honoreth Me," the expression must include all the works, and signs, and miracles, which the Father gave Him to do; as well as the words which He gave Him to speak. (John 5:36; John 14:10-11.) v55.—[Yet ye have not known Him, etc.] The meaning of this verse seems to be as follows: "Although you say of My Father in heaven that He is your God, you do not really know Him, and are plainly ignorant of His character, His will, and His purposes. Professing to know Him, in works you deny Him. But I, on the contrary, know Him perfectly: for I am indeed one with Him from all eternity, and came forth from Him. So perfectly do I know Him, that I should be a liar, and a child of the devil, like yourselves, if I said I did not know Him. But I repeat that I know Him perfectly, and in all My words and works here on earth I carefully keep His sayings, and observe the commission He gave me." There is undeniably a great peculiarity in the language of this verse. But it is probably a Hebrew mode of putting in strong contrast the Jews' thorough ignorance of God, notwithstanding their high profession of being His chosen people,— and our Lord's perfect knowledge of God, notwithstanding the repeated assertions that He had a devil, was a Samaritan, and was consequently an enemy to the God of Israel.— The phrase, "I should be a liar, like yourselves, if I said I did not know the Father," was just the phrase to convey the strongest idea to the Jews' minds of our Lord's knowledge.— In arguing with some men, nothing but the strongest language, and the most paradoxical expressions, have any effect.— Even God himself thinks it good to make such an asseveration as "I swear by myself," and "as I live," in order to command attention. (Jeremiah 22:5; Hebrews 6:13; Ezekiel 33:11.) Those who blame ministers and preachers for using strong language, and say that they should never use any but gentle, tame, and mild phrases, can hardly have studied human nature or the style of Scripture with thorough attention. v56.—[Your father Abraham, etc.] Our Lord, in this verse, takes up the question of the Jews, as to His being greater than Abraham, and boldly gives an answer. "You ask Me whether I am greater than Abraham. I tell you in reply that I am He whose coming and whose day of glory Abraham rejoiced to think he should see. Moreover by faith he even saw it, and when he saw it he was glad." The precise meaning of the words of this verse is rather difficult to discover, though the general idea of it is plain and unmistakable. It is clear that our Lord implies that He is the promised Messiah, the Seed of Abraham, in whom all the generations of the earth should be blessed,— and of whom when Abraham first heard, "he laughed" for joy. (Genesis 17:17.) (a) Some think, as most of the Fathers and Reformers, that it means, "Abraham rejoiced in the prospect of seeing, at some future time, My day, the day of Messiah; and by faith he did see it afar off." (b) Some think, as Maldonatus, Lampe, Stier, and Bloomfield, that it means, "Abraham rejoiced when he was told that he should see My day; and he actually has seen it in Paradise, and has been gladdened there in the separate state by the sight." (c) Some think, as Brown, Olshausen, Alford, Webster, and Hengstenberg, that it means, "Abraham's great desire and joyful expectation was to see My day, and he actually saw Me when I appeared to him and talked with him on earth." Of these three views the first appears to me the most probable, and most in keeping with the history of Abraham, in Genesis. It should be carefully observed that our Lord does not say that "Abraham saw ME," but that "he saw My day." The cause of Abraham's joy seems to have been, that there was to be of his seed a Messiah, a Savior; and that he should see His day,— the day of the Lord, the triumphant day of Messiah's complete victory and restitution of all things. This day he even saw by faith afar off, and was glad at the sight.— Our Lord's object does not seem to be to tell the Jews that Abraham had seen Him, but that He was "the Seed," the Messiah, who was promised to their father Abraham. The Jews had asked whether he was greater than Abraham? "Yes," he replies, "I am. I am that very Messiah whose day Abraham rejoiced to hear of, and saw afar off by faith. If you were like Abraham you would rejoice to see Me." Chrysostom and Euthymius think that "My day," in this verse, means "the day of the crucifixion, which Abraham foreshowed typically by offering the ram in Isaac's place." This however seems a very cramped and limited view. Rupertus thinks that Abraham "saw the day of Christ" when he entertained the three angels who came to him. Augustine thinks it may refer to both the advents of Christ: first in humiliation, and second in glory. v57.—[Then said the Jews, etc.] It is plain that the Jews here put a wrong meaning on our Lord's words, and suppose Him to say that Abraham had seen Him, and He had seen Abraham. Yet our Lord had only said, "Abraham saw My day." It is another instance of their readiness to pervert His words. When the Jews said, "Thou art not yet fifty years old," I believe they only meant, "Thou art not yet a middle-aged man." Fifty years old was the turning point in life, at which the Levites and priests were excused from further active service in the tabernacle. (Numbers 4:3.) I fancy the reference is to this.— Our Lord was at this time about thirty-three years old, or at most thirty-four. The notion of Irenæus and Papias that He really was fifty before He was crucified, is utterly without warrant, and absurd. Some think that our Lord's countenance was so marred and aged by sorrow and care, that He looked much older than He really was, and that hence the Jews supposed Him to be nearly fifty. But I prefer the former view. Euthymius thinks that the Jews thought our Lord was fifty years old, on account of His great wisdom and experience. This, however, seems a weak and untenable view. v58.—[Jesus said...before Abraham was, I am.] This famous verse, I believe, can only receive one honest interpretation. It is a distinct assertion of our Lord's eternity,— His existence before all creation. "I solemnly declare unto you that before Abraham was and existed I was, the great I AM, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever,— the eternal God." All attempts to evade this explanation appear to me so preposterous that it is a waste of time to notice them. The man who can think the words only mean, "I am He who was promised to Adam before Abraham was born," seems past the reach of reasoning.— The name "I AM," we must remember, is the very name by which God revealed Himself to the Jews, when He sent Moses to them: "Say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me." (Exodus 3:14.) Let us carefully note what a strong proof we have here of the pre-existence and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He applies to Himself the very name by which God made Himself known when He undertook to redeem Israel. It was "I AM" who brought them out of the land of Egypt. It was "I AM" who died for us upon the cross. The amazing strength of the foundation of a sinner's hope appears here. Believing on Jesus we rest on divinity, on One who is God as well as man. There is a difference in the Greek verbs here employed, which we should carefully notice. The Greek for "was" is quite different from the Greek for "am." It is as if our Lord said, "Before Abraham was born, I have an existence individual and eternal." Chrysostom observes: "He said not before Abraham was, I was, but, I AM. As the Father useth this expression I AM, so also doth Christ, for it signifieth continuous being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to the Jews blasphemous." Augustine says: "In these words acknowledge the Creator and discern the creature. He that spake was made the Seed of Abraham; and that Abraham might be, He was before Abraham." Gregory remarks: "Divinity has no past or future, but always the present; and therefore Jesus does not say before Abraham was I was, but I am." v59.—[Then took they up stones to cast at Him.] It is clear that the Jews at any rate had no doubt what our Lord meant in the preceding verse, whatever modern Socinians may think. They saw and knew at once that He who spake to them boldly claimed to be Jehovah, the One far greater than Abraham, being very God. This they did not believe, and therefore regarded Him as a blasphemer who ought at once to be stoned. In their rage and fury they immediately took up stones, which were probably lying about on account of repairs of the temple, in order to stone Him. The whole proceeding appears to have been a tumultuous and disorderly one, not regularly conducted, but sudden and unauthorized, like the stoning of Stephen afterwards. (Acts 7:58.) [But Jesus hid Himself, etc.] I think this withdrawal can only be regarded as miraculous. The Greek word rendered "hid Himself" is literally "was hid." It seems most improbable that our Lord could "pass by" and "go through the midst" of an angry crowd, whose eyes had for a long time been fixed and concentrated on Him, without being seen and stopped, unless there was a miraculous interposition. I believe that the eyes of His enemies were holden, and that they did not know Him for a season, or that by His own almighty power He rendered Himself temporarily invisible. It is only what He did at Nazareth on a similar occasion; (Luke 4:30;) and if we once concede that our Lord could work miracles at His will, there seems no reason to suppose that He would not work one on this occasion. Let us note that our Lord's enemies could do nothing to Him until His hour was come for suffering. When He was at last taken prisoner, brought before Pilate, and crucified, it was not because He could not escape, but because He would not. What He did here He might have done there. Let us note that it is not always the path of duty and of real obedience to God's will to sit still and submit to sufferings and death. It may be the will of God that we should "flee to some other city" and avoid death. (Matthew 10:23.) To court martyrdom and throw away life, when it might be saved, is not always the duty of a servant of Christ. Some of the martyrs of the primitive Church appear to have forgotten this. Augustine says: "Jesus did not hide Himself in a corner of the temple as if He were afraid, or take refuge in a house, or run behind a wall or a pillar; but by His heavenly power He made Himself invisible to His enemies, and went through the midst of them." The argument of Maldonatus, that this verse proves the possibility of Christ being corporally present in the Lord's Supper in the bread, is so preposterous that it requires no refutation. There is no positive proof that our Lord was actually invisible here. It is quite possible that the eyes of His enemies were "holden that they could not know Him." (Luke 24:16.) If He was invisible, Maldonatus proves too much. The bread in the Lord's Supper is seen, and after consecration the Roman Catholic says its substance is changed. But it is not invisible. In leaving this remarkable chapter, we should not fail to notice the difficulties under which our Lord's public ministry was carried on. Ten times, between John 8:12 and John 8:59, we find His enemies interrupting, contradicting, or reviling Him. Our Master's calm dignity and perfect meekness under all this "contradiction of sinners," ought to be a never-forgotten example to His disciples. It is a wise remark of Pascal, that our Lord's enemies, by their incessant caviling and interruption, both here and elsewhere, have supplied us unintentionally with a strong proof of the truth of His teaching. If our Lord's doctrines had only been delivered privately to a prejudiced audience of kind and loving disciples, they would not come down to us with the same weight that they do now. But they were often proclaimed in the midst of bitter enemies, learned Scribes and Pharisees, who were ready to detect any flaw or defect in His reasoning. That the enemies of Christ could never answer or silence Him is a strong evidence that His doctrine was God's own truth. It was from heaven and not from men. THE chapter we now begin records one of the few great works of Christ which John has reported. It tells us how our Lord gave sight to a man who had been "blind from his birth." Here, as elsewhere in this Gospel, we find the circumstances of the miracle narrated with peculiar fullness, minuteness, and particularity. Here too, as elsewhere, we find the narrative rich in spiritual lessons. We should observe, first, in this passage, how much sorrow sin has brought into the world. A sorrowful case is brought before us. We are told of a man "who was blind from his birth." A more serious affliction can hardly be conceived. Of all the bodily crosses that can be laid on man, without taking away life, none perhaps is greater than the loss of sight. It cuts us off from some of the greatest enjoyments of life. It shuts us up within a narrow world of our own. It makes us painfully helpless and dependent on others. In fact, until men lose their eyesight, they never fully realize its value. Blindness, like every other bodily infirmity, is one of the fruits of sin. If Adam had never fallen, we cannot doubt that people would never have been blind, or deaf, or dumb. The many ills that flesh is heir to, the countless pains, and diseases, and physical defects to which we are all liable, came in when the curse came upon the earth. "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." (Romans 5:12.) Let us learn to hate sin with a godly hatred, as the root of more than half our cares and sorrows. Let us fight against it, mortify it, crucify it, and abhor it both in ourselves and others. There cannot be a clearer proof that man is a fallen creature than the fact that he can love sin and take pleasure in it. We should observe, secondly, in this passage, what a solemn lesson Christ gives us about the use of opportunities. He says to the disciples who asked Him about the blind man, "I must work while it is called to-day: the night cometh, when no man can work." That saying was eminently true when applied to our Lord Himself. He knew well that his own earthly ministry would only last three years altogether, and knowing this He diligently redeemed the time. He let slip no opportunity of doing works of mercy, and attending to His Father's business. Morning, noon, and night He was always carrying on the work which the Father gave Him to do. It was "His meat and drink to do His Father's will, and to finish His work." (John 4:34.) His whole life breathed one sentiment,—"I must work: the night cometh, when no man can work." The saying is one which should be remembered by all professing Christians. The life that we now live in the flesh is our day. Let us take care that we use it well, for the glory of God and the good of our souls. Let us work out our salvation with fear and trembling, while it is called to-day. There is no work nor labor in the grave, toward which we are all fast hastening. Let us pray, and read, and keep our Sabbaths holy, and hear God's Word, and do good in our generation, like men who never forget that "the night is at hand." Our time is very short. Our daylight will soon be gone. Opportunities once lost can never be retrieved. A second lease of life is granted to no man. Then let us resist procrastination as we would resist the devil. Whatever our hand findeth to do, let us do it with our might. "The night cometh, when no man can work." We should observe, thirdly, in this passage, what different means Christ used in working miracles on different occasions. In healing the blind man He might, if He had thought fit, have merely touched Him with his finger, or given command with His tongue. But He did not rest content with doing so. We are told that "He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay." In all these means of course there was no inherent healing virtue. But for wise reasons the Lord was pleased to use them. We need not doubt that in this, as in every other action of our Lord, there is an instructive lesson. It teaches us, we may well believe, that the Lord of heaven and earth will not be tied down to the use of any one means or instrumentality. In conferring blessings on man, He will work in His own way, and will allow no one to prescribe to Him. Above all, it should teach those who have received anything at Christ's hands, to be careful how they measure other men's experience by their own. Have we been healed by Christ, and made to see and live? Let us thank God for it, and be humbled. But let us beware of saying that no other man has been healed, except he has been brought to spiritual life in precisely the same manner. The great question is,—"Are the eyes of our understanding opened? Do we see? Have we spiritual life?"—Enough for us if the cure is effected and health restored. If it is, we must leave it to the great Physician to choose the instrument, the means, and the manner,—the clay, the touch, or the command. We should observe, lastly, in this passage, the almighty power that Christ holds in His hands. We see Him doing that which in itself was impossible. Without medicines He cures an incurable case. He actually gives eyesight to one that was born blind. Such a miracle as this is meant to teach an old truth, which we can never know too well. It shows us that Jesus the Savior of sinners "has all power in heaven and earth." Such mighty works could never have been done by one that was merely man. In the cure of this blind man we see nothing less than the finger of God. Such a miracle, above all, is meant to make us hopeful about our own souls and the souls of others. Why should we despair of salvation while we have such a Savior? Where is the spiritual disease that He cannot take away? He can open the eyes of the most sinful and ignorant, and make them see things they never saw before. He can send light into the darkest heart, and cause blindness and prejudice to pass away. Surely, if we are not saved, the fault will be all our own. There lives at God's right hand One who can heal us if we apply to Him. Let us take heed lest those solemn words are found true of us,—"Light is come into the world: but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." "Ye will not come to Me that ye might have life." (John 3:19; John 5:40.) ================== Notes— v1.—[And as Jesus passed by.] The Greek word rendered "passed by," is the same as the word so rendered in the preceding verse, at the end of the last chapter (John 8:59).— Some think, from this repetition, that the miracle recorded here took place immediately after the events of the last chapter, without the least break or interruption; and that it was as our Lord was retiring from the temple, after the attempt of the Jews to stone Him, that He saw the blind man.— Others, however, think that an interval of time must have elapsed, partly because it seems improbable that our Lord and His disciples would all be able to withdraw themselves quietly from an angry mob, and calmly stand still near the scene of attempted violence to attend to a blind man, and partly because it is the manner of John's Gospel to pass from one event to another, sometimes without intimating that there is any change of time or place. Thus, John 5:19; John 6:25, John 6:43, John 6:59; John 7:28-33. The point, however, is not one of any practical importance. Chemnitius holds strongly that an interval of two months comes in here, and that our Lord spent that time in a visitation of the towns and villages of Judæa, as related in Luke 13:22. He thinks that He thus occupied the two months after the feast of tabernacles, and that He returned to Jerusalem shortly before the feast of dedication, in winter. The main objection to this theory seems to be, that it is not the natural conclusion we should draw from the text. Gualter, Ferus, Ecolampadius, and Musculus maintain, on the other hand, that there is a close and intentional connection between this chapter and the preceding one. They think that our Lord desired to show, by deed as well as word, that He was "the Light of the world." (John 8:12.) Bucer says, "This chapter is a sermon in act and deed, on the words, 'I am the Light of the world.' " In the miracle which occupies the whole of this chapter, the following special circumstances deserve notice: (1) It is only related by John. (2) Like each of the few miracles in John, it is described with great minuteness and particularity. (3) It is one of the four miracles wrought in Judæa, or near Jerusalem, mentioned in John. He records eight great miracles altogether: four in Galilee,— turning the water into wine, healing the nobleman's son, feeding the multitude, and walking on the water (chap. 2., 4., and 6.); and four in Judæa,— purifying the temple, healing the impotent man, restoring sight to the blind, and raising Lazarus. (Chap. 2., 5., 6., and 9.) (4) It is one of those miracles which the Jews were especially taught to expect in Messiah's time: "In that day shall the eyes of the blind see out of obscurity." (Isaiah 29:18.) (5) It is one of those signs of Messiah having come, to which Jesus particularly directed John the Baptist's attention: "The blind receive their sight." (Matthew 11:5.) (6) It was a miracle worked in so public a place, and on a man so well known, that it was impossible for the Jerusalem Jews to deny it. It is hardly necessary, perhaps, to bid any well-instructed Christian observe the singularly instructive and typical character of each of the eight miracles which John was inspired to record. Each was a vivid picture of spiritual things. Hengstenberg observes, that three of the four great miracles wrought by Christ in Judæa exactly represent the three classes of works referred to in Matthew 11:5, "The lame walk, the blind see, the dead are raised up." (John 11:1-57.) [He saw a man...blind from his birth.] The man was probably sitting near the temple gateway, to attract the notice of worshippers going to and fro, like the man described in Acts. (Acts 3:2.) From blindness he would naturally be dependent on charity. The Jewish law specifies the blind as peculiarly deserving of attention (Leviticus 19:14; Deuteronomy 27:18.) To give sight to one who had not lost the use of his eyes by disease or accident, but had never seen at all, was of course a mighty miracle. Let it be noted, that our Lord "saw" the blind man, and healed him of His own free will, unasked, and unexpectedly. As in the case of the impotent man, (John 5:6,) He did not wait to be entreated, but was Himself the first to move. Let it however be noted at the same time, that if the man had not been by the wayside, our Lord would not have seen him. Chrysostom observes, that when the Jews "would not receive our Lord's sayings, and tried to kill Him, He went out of the temple, and healed the blind, mitigating their rage by His absence; and by working a miracle, both softening their hardness, and proving His affections. And it is clear that He proceeded intentionally to this work on leaving the temple, for it was He who saw the blind man, and not the blind man who came to Him." Gualter observes, that this passage shows how the eyes of the Lord are in every place, and how He sees His own people, even when they think not of Him. Alford thinks it possible that the blind man was constantly proclaiming that he had been born blind, to excite pity. Burgon observes: "More of our Savior's miracles are recorded as having been wrought on blindness than on any other form of human infirmity. One deaf and dumb man is related to have had speech and hearing restored to him; one case of palsy, and one of dropsy, find special record; twice was leprosy, and twice was fever expelled by the Savior's word; three times were dead persons raised to life; but the records of His cures wrought on blindness are four in number, at least, if not five." (See Matthew 12:22.) Isaiah seems to foretell the recovery of sight by the blind, as "an act of mercy specially symbolical of Messiah's day." (Isaiah 29:18; Isaiah 32:3; Isaiah 35:5; Isaiah 42:7.) v2.—[And his disciples asked him.] This expression seems to show that our Lord was surrounded and accompanied by His usual followers, and favors the idea that there was some break or interval between the beginning of this chapter and the end of the last. Though He by Divine power could hide Himself and go through the midst of His enemies, it is hardly reasonable to suppose that within a few minutes He would be surrounded again by His disciples. Yet it is of course possible. [Master, who did sin, this man...parents...blind?] This curious question has given rise to much unprofitable discussion. It is repeatedly asked,— Why did the disciples say this? What put it into their minds to start the inquiry? (a) Some think that the Jews had imbibed the common Oriental notion of the pre-existence and transmigration of souls from one body to another, and that the disciples supposed that in some previous state of existence this blind man must have committed some great sin, for which he was now punished. (b) Some think that the question refers to a strange notion current among some Jews, that infants might sin before they were born. In support of this view, they quote Genesis 25:22, and Genesis 38:28-29. (c) The most probable view is, that the question arose from a misapplication of such passages of Scripture as the Second Commandment, where God speaks of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children," (Exodus 20:5,) and from a forgetfulness of Eze 18:20, etc. There are few notions that men seem to cling to so naturally, as the notion that bodily sufferings, and all afflictions, are the direct consequences of sin, and that a diseased or afflicted person must necessarily be a very wicked man. This was precisely the short-sighted view that Job's three friends took up when they came to visit him, and against which Job contended. This was the idea of the people at Melita, when Paul was bitten by a viper, after the shipwreck: "This man is a murderer." (Acts 28:4.) This appears to have been at the bottom of the question of the disciples: "There is suffering; then there must have been sin. Whose sin was it?" Chrysostom thinks that the disciples remembered our Lord's words to the paralytic whom He healed (John 5:14): "Thou art made whole; sin no more;" and asked now to what sin this man's blindness might be traced. This, however, seems very improbable, considering the length of time between the two miracles. Hengstenberg observes that the fallacy of supposing that special afflictions are the result of some special sins, "commends itself to low and common spirits by its simplicity and palpableness. It has the advantage of rendering it needless to weep with them that weep. It saves a man from the obligation, when he sees heavy affliction, of smiting on his breast, and saying 'God be merciful to me a sinner.' It gives the natural man the comfortable feeling that he is so much the better than the sufferer, as he is more fortunate." Those who wish to go more deeply into the subject will find it fully discussed by the great Dutch divine, Gomarus. It is worth notice that the word here rendered "Master" is the same that is rendered "Rabbi" in five other places in John. (John 1:38; John 1:49; John 3:2; John 3:26; John 6:25.) Why our translators did not observe uniformity in their translation of the word throughout this Gospel is not very clear. v3.—[Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned...parents.] This first part of our Lord's answer is elliptical. The sense of course must be supplied from the context. Our Lord did not mean that neither this blind man nor his parents had committed any sin at all, but that it was not any special sin of his or theirs which had caused his blindness. Nor yet did our Lord mean that the sins of parents could never entail disease on children; but that the case before Him, at any rate, was not such a case. Of course He did not mean us to forget that sin is the great primeval cause of all the evils that are in the world. [But that the works of God...manifest in him.] The meaning of this must be, that the man's blindness was permitted and overruled by God, in order that His works of mercy in healing him might be shown to men. This blindness was allowed and ordained by God, not because he was specially wicked, but in order to furnish a platform for the exhibition of a work of Divine mercy and power. A deep and instructive principle lies in these words. They surely throw some light on that great question,— the origin of evil. God has thought fit to allow evil to exist, in order that He may have a platform for showing His mercy, grace, and compassion. If man had never fallen, there would have been no opportunity of showing Divine mercy. But by permitting evil, mysterious as it seems, God's works of grace, mercy, and wisdom in saving sinners, have been wonderfully manifested to all His creatures. The redeeming of the Church of elect sinners is the means of "showing to principalities and powers the manifold wisdom of God." (Ephesians 3:10.) Without the fall we should have known nothing of the cross and the Gospel. Melancthon, on this verse, suggests no less than ten reasons why God permits evil to come on the Church, which contain much food for thought. Brentius and Chemnitius also say many excellent things on the same theme. Bucer remarks that this verse should teach us to bear ills patiently and cheerfully, since all that happens to us tends, in some way, to the glory of God. Gualter remarks, that even wicked men like Pharaoh subserve the glory of God, (Romans 9:17;) much more may men's afflictions and diseases. Ecolampadius remarks, that God allows nothing whatever to happen without some good reason and cause. Henry observes: "The intention of Providence often does not appear till a great while after the event, perhaps many years after. The sentences in the book of Providence are sometimes long, and you must read a great way before you understand the meaning." Jones, of Nayland, on this text remarks: "The best way to answer the great question of the origin of evil, is to consider the end of it, 'what good comes out of it?' this makes the subject plain and useful. Why was this man born blind? That the works of God might appear, and Christ might cure him.— Why is evil permitted in the world? That God may be glorified in removing it.— Why does the body of man die? That God may raise it up again.— When we philosophize in this manner we find light, certainty, and comfort. We have a memorable example of it in the case before us." Barnes remarks that "Those who are afflicted with blindness, deafness, or any deformity, should be submissive to God. It is His appointment, and is right and best. God does no wrong; and when all His works are seen, the universe will see and know that He is just." v4.—[I must work the works, etc.] The connection between this verse and the preceding one seems to be in the word "works." It is as though our Lord said,— "Healing the blind man is one of the great 'works' which God has appointed for Me to do, and I must do it during the 'day,' or short period of My ministry. This blindness was ordained by My Father to be a means of showing forth My divine power." The expression "while it is day," and "the night cometh," must probably be interpreted with special reference to our Lord's ministry upon earth. While He was with His disciples speaking, teaching, and working miracles, it was comparatively "day." His little Church basked in the full sunlight of His Divine presence, and saw and learned countless wonderful things. When He ascended up on high it became comparatively "night." Just as in night "no man can work," [Psalms 104:23] so when Christ left the world the visible proof of His Divine mission, which the disciples had so long enjoyed and seen, could no longer be given. The proverbial saying, "No man can work in the night," would be verified. These limits to the application of the figure must be carefully remembered. Of course our Lord did not mean that the Church, after His ascension, would not enjoy far more spiritual light than it did before He came; nor yet that the disciples, after the day of Pentecost, would not see many truths far more clearly even than when Christ was with them. But the words "day and night" here have a special reference to our Lord's bodily presence with His Church. As long as He was visibly with them it was "day." When He left them it was "night." It is well to remark that Paul uses the same figures when comparing time present with time to come, at the second advent. He says, "The night is far spent, and the day is at hand." (Romans 13:12.) There the night is Christ's bodily absence, and the day Christ's bodily presence. Melancthon points out what an example Christ supplies to Christians in this place. The hatred, opposition, and persecution of the world, and the failures and infirmities of professing Christians, must not make us give way to despondency. Like our Master, we must work on. Calvin observes: "From these words we may deduce the universal rule, that to every man the course of his life may be called his day." Beza and others think that there is a primary prophecy here of the withdrawal of light and privilege from the Jews, which was in the mind of our Lord, as well as the general principle that to all men day is the time for work and not night. v5.—[As long as I am in the world, etc.] This verse seems to be a general broad assertion of our Lord's purpose in coming into the world, and His position while in it. "I came into the world to be its Sun and spiritual Guide, and to deliver men from the natural darkness in which they are; and so long as I am in the world I wish to be its Light in the fullest sense, the Deliverer of men's souls and the Healer of men's bodies." Cocceius suggests, that in these words our Lord had respect to the fact that He was going to work a work on the Sabbath, and that it would be disapproved by the Jews, as a breach of the Sabbath. Foreseeing this, He defends what He is about to do, by reminding His disciples that during the short time of His earthly ministry He must seize every opportunity of doing good. Alford observes, that just as Jesus said before He raised Lazarus, "I am the Resurrection and the Life," so here, before giving sight to the blind, He said, "I am the Light." v6.—[When...thus spoken...spat...anointed...clay.] The action here used by our Lord is the same that we find used on two other occasions,— once when He healed one deaf and dumb, (Mark 7:33;) once when He healed a blind man. (Mark 8:23.) The making of the "clay," however, is quite peculiar to this miracle. The reason why our Lord used the action we cannot tell. There is, of course, no special virtue either in spittle, or in clay made from spittle, which could cure a man born blind. Why then did Jesus use this means? Why did He not heal the man with a word or a touch? The only answer to such inquiries is, that our Lord would teach us, by His peculiar mode of proceeding here, that He is not tied to any one means of doing good, and that we may expect to find variety in His methods of dealing with souls, as well as with bodies. May He not also wish to teach us that He can, when He thinks fit, invest material things with an efficacy which is not inherent in them? We are not to despise Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because water, bread, and wine are mere material elements. To many who use them, no doubt they are nothing more than mere material things, and never do them the slightest good. But to those who use the sacraments rightly, worthily, and with faith, Christ can make water, bread, and wine, instruments of doing real good. He that was pleased to use clay in healing a blind man, may surely use material things, if He thinks fit, in His own ordinances. The water in Baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, while they are not to be treated as idols, ought not to be treated with irreverence and contempt. It was, of course, not the clay that healed the blind man, but Christ's word and power. Nevertheless the clay was used. So the brazen serpent in itself had no medicinal power to cure the bitten Israelites. But without it they were not cured. The selection of clay for anointing the blind man's eyes is thought by some to be significant, and to contain a possible reference to the original formation of man out of the dust. He that formed man with all his bodily faculties out of the dust could easily restore one of those lost faculties, even sight, when He thought fit. He that healed these blind eyes with clay, was the same Being who originally formed man out of the clay. Ecolampadius thinks that the spittle was an emblem of Christ's Divinity, and the clay of His humanity, and that the union of the two represented the union of the two natures in Christ's person, whereby healing came to a sin-sick world. To say the least, this seems fanciful. Barradius suggests that our Lord actually formed new eyes for the man, as He at first formed man's body out of the dust. This, however, seems needlessly improbable. Poole thinks that our Lord used spittle to make clay, simply because there was no water nigh at hand to make it with. Wordsworth observes that Christ's manner of working the miracle was "tenderness to the Jews. They would see the clay on the man's eyes, and see him going to Siiloam." He also observes, "God loves to effect His greatest works by means tending under ordinary circumstances to produce the very opposite of what is to be done. God walls the sea with sand. God clears the air with storms. God warms the earth with snow. So in the world of grace. He brings water in the desert, not from the soft earth, but the flinty rock. He heals the sting of the serpent of fire by the serpent of brass. He overthrows the wall of Jericho by ram's horns. He slays a thousand men with the jaw-bone of an ass. He cures salt water with salt. He fells the giant with a sling and stone. And thus does the Son of God work in the Gospel. He cures the blind man by that which seemed likely to increase his blindness, by anointing his eyes with clay. He exalts us to heaven by the stumbling-block of the cross." v7.—[And said...Go, wash...Siloam.] The direction here given to the blind man would remind any pious Jew of Elisha's directions to Naaman, "Go, wash in Jordan." (2 Kings 5:10.) The water of this pool had no inherent healing efficacy any more than other water. But the command was a test of faith, and in obeying, the blind man found what he wanted. It is the great principle which runs through Scripture,— "Believe and obey, and all will be right." The pool of Siloam was a well-known reservoir, or artificial pond, in a valley close to Jerusalem, remarkable for a supply of water from an intermittent spring. It is pointed out in the present day, and there seems no reason to doubt that it is the same pool that was so called eighteen hundred years ago. It is first mentioned in Nehemiah 3:15, and afterwards in Isaiah 8:6. Lightfoot asserts that the pool of Bethesda and the pool of Siloam were both supplied from one spring. [Which is by interpretation, Sent.] There is undeniable difficulty about this sentence. It is naturally asked,— Why is this parenthetical explanation inserted by John? Why are we specially told that the word Siloam means Sent, or He that was sent?— The most probable answer seems to be, that the name of the fountain was meant to refer the blind man's mind to the Messiah, whom God had "sent." All pious Jews would understand the expression which so frequently occurs in John's Gospel, "He whom God hath sent," to point to Messiah. When therefore Jesus said, "Go, wash in Siloam," the naming of that particular fountain would be a silent hint that He who gave the command was the Sent One of God, the great Healer of all diseases. John's parenthesis would then mean, when expounded: "This was a most suitable and proper pool for Jesus to name. It was fitting that He who was 'Sent of God' should work a miracle in the pool called 'Sent.' "— This is the view of Chrysostom and Augustine. It is impossible to help feeling that the clause looks very much like the insertion of some ignorant early copyist, who wished to show his own knowledge of etymology, and perhaps found it in an old copy as a marginal gloss. The Syriac and Persian versions to not contain the clause. Yet it certainly is found in most manuscripts and versions. Hutcheson thinks that John inserted this clause for no other end than to remind readers that this fountain was a special gift "sent" by God, among the hills near Jerusalem, for the benefit of the Jews. Hengstenberg says: "As Jesus represents Himself and His Church as the real Pool of Bethesda, in chapter 5., so here He declares Himself the real Sent One, or Siloam, the Fountain of blessings." [He went...washed...came seeing.] The blind man, as is often the case with people born blind, was probably able to find his way about Jerusalem without trouble, and the road from the temple-gate to the pool of Siloam was likely to be much frequented. His implicit faith and obedience contrast favorably with the conduct of Naaman, when told to go and wash in Jordan. (2 Kings 5:14.) The word "came" must either mean "to his own home," or simply "came back to the temple-gate." The miracle of healing seems to have taken place in the act of washing in Siloam. Let us remember that the blind man's conduct is meant to be a pattern to us. He did not stumble at Christ's command, but simply obeyed; and in obeying he was healed. We must do likewise. Melancthon thinks it likely that a crowd of curious and jeering spectators accompanied the man to Siloam to see the result of our Lord's prescription. Scott remarks that the immediate power of using the eyes was no small part of the miracle. When people recover sight now after surgical operations, it requires a considerable time to learn the use of the newly-acquired sense. v8.—[The neighbors.] This would seem to show that he "came" to his own house as soon as he was healed of his blindness. The word before us naturally means the people who lived near to him. [They which before had seen...blind.] This expression includes all persons in Jerusalem who knew the blind man by sight, though they did not live near him, but had often seen him near the temple and become familiar with his appearance. There are generally blind beggars in the chief thoroughfares of large cities, and near large public buildings, whom all residents know well by sight. The slow, uncertain, feeble gait of a blind man always makes him conspicuous. [Is not this he that sat and begged?] This question seems to settle that the blind man was one of the poorest and humblest class of Jews. None are so likely to come to poverty and be dependent on charity as the blind, who of course cannot work for their own support. v9.—[Some said, This is he.] This probably was the saying of the blind man's neighbors, who naturally knew him best. [Others said, he is like him.] This was probably the saying of the people living in Jerusalem, who knew the blind man by sight, but did not live near him, and were not therefore so familiar with is appearance. The difference between the look and demeanor of the man before and after his miraculous cure would necessarily be very great. One can quite understand that some would hardly know him again. Augustine remarks, "The opened eyes had altered his looks." Musculus observes how much the expression of a face depends upon the eyes. [He said, I am he.] This was the saying of the man when he heard people doubting his identity and looking at him with hesitation. "I assure you," he says, "that I am he who used to sit at the temple-gate and beg." v10.—[Therefore said they, etc.] Those who asked this question appear to have been the people who came together round the blind man, when he returned from the pool of Siloam with his sight restored. Some were his neighbors, and others were inhabitants of Jerusalem, drawn together by the miracle. The inquiry was the natural one that such a wonderful cure would first call forth. v11.—[He answered and said, etc.] This verse is a simple, unvarnished account of the facts of the cure. How the blind man knew that our Lord's name was "Jesus," does not appear. It is not unlikely that some of the bystanders, when our Lord first told him to go to the pool of Siloam, told him that Jesus of Nazareth, the person whose preaching was making such stir in Jerusalem, was the speaker. We cannot doubt that our Lord was well known by this time to all dwellers in Jerusalem. Yet there is no proof that the beggar recognized Him as anything more than "a man called Jesus." The accuracy with which he recites all the facts of his cure is well worthy of notice. "He first put clay on my eyes; then He bid me go and wash in Siloam;— I went: I was cured." v12.—[Then said they...where is He?...He...know not.] The desire to see the worker of this wonderful miracle was natural, but the question, "Where is He?" was probably asked with a mischievous intention. Those who asked it wished to lay hands on our Lord, and bring Him before the rulers. The man's answer certainly seems to show that he did not return to the place where he had sat and begged, but to his house. Had he gone back to the temple-gates, he might have replied, that Jesus was here only a short time before, and was probably not far off. The questioners seem to suppose that the worker of such a miracle and the subject of it could not be far apart. They did not understand that our Lord always avoided, rather than courted, public notice. These verses show us how little the Jews of our Lord's time understood the right use of the Sabbath day. We read that some of the Pharisees found fault because a blind man was miraculously healed on the Sabbath. They said, "This man is not of God, because He keepeth not the Sabbath day." A good work had manifestly been done to a helpless fellow-creature. A heavy bodily infirmity had been removed. A mighty act of mercy had been performed. But the blind-hearted enemies of Christ could see no beauty in the act. They called it a breach of the Fourth Commandment! These would-be wise men completely mistook the intention of the Sabbath. They did not see that it was "made for man," and meant for the good of man's body, mind, and soul. It was a day to be set apart from others, no doubt, and to be carefully sanctified and kept holy. But its sanctification was never intended to prevent works of necessity and acts of mercy. To heal a sick man was no breach of the Sabbath day. In finding fault with our Lord for so doing, the Jews only exposed their ignorance of their own law. They had forgotten that it is as great a sin to add to a commandment, as to take it away. Here, as in other places, we must take care that we do not put a wrong meaning on our Lord's conduct. We must not for a moment suppose that the Sabbath is no longer binding on Christians, and that they have nothing to do with the Fourth Commandment. This is a great mistake, and the root of great evil. Not one of the ten commandments has ever been repealed or put aside. Our Lord never meant the Sabbath to become a day of pleasure, or a day of business, or a day of traveling and idle dissipation. He meant it to be "kept holy" as long as the world stands. It is one thing to employ the Sabbath in works of mercy, in ministering to the sick, and doing good to the distressed. It is quite another thing to spend the day in visiting, feasting, and self-indulgence. Whatever men may please to say, the way in which we use the Sabbath a sure test of the state of our religion. By the Sabbath may be found out whether we love communion with God. By the Sabbath may be found out whether we are in tune for heaven. By the Sabbath, in short, the secrets of many hearts are revealed. There are only too many of whom we may say with sorrow, "These men are not of God, because they keep not the Sabbath day." These verses show us, secondly, the desperate lengths to which prejudice will sometimes carry wicked men. We read that the "Jews agreed that if any man did confess that Jesus was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue." They were determined not to believe. They were resolved that no evidence should change their minds, and no proofs influence their will. They were like men who shut their eyes and tie a bandage over them, and refuse to have it untied. Just as in after times they stopped their ears when Stephen preached, and refused to listen when Paul made his defense, so they behaved at this period of our Lord's ministry. Of all states of mind into which unconverted men can fall, this is by far the most dangerous to the soul. So long as a person is candid, fair, and honest-minded, there is hope for him, however ignorant he may be. He may be much in the dark at present. But is he willing to follow the light, if set before him? He may be walking in the broad road with all his might. But is he ready to listen to any one who will show him a more excellent way? In a word, is he teachable, childlike, and unfettered by prejudice? If these questions can be answered satisfactorily, we never need despair about the man's soul. The state of mind we should always desire to possess, is that of the noble-minded Beræans. When they first heard the Apostle Paul preach they listened with attention. They received the Word "with all readiness of mind." They "searched the Scriptures," and compared what they heard with God's Word. "And therefore," we are told, "many of them believed." Happy are they that go and do likewise! (Acts 17:11-12.) These verses show us, lastly, that nothing convinces a man so thoroughly as his own senses and feelings. We read that the unbelieving Jews tried in vain to persuade the blind man whom Jesus healed, that nothing had been done for him. They only got from him one plain answer: "One thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see." How the miracle had been worked, he did not pretend to explain. Whether the person who had healed him was a sinner, he did not profess to know. But that something had been done for him he stoutly maintained. He was not to be reasoned out of his senses. Whatever the Jews might think, there were two distinct facts of which he was conscious: "I was blind: now I see." There is no kind of evidence so satisfactory as this to the heart of a real Christian. His knowledge may be small. His faith may be feeble. His doctrinal views may be at present confused and indistinct. But if Christ has really wrought a work of grace in his heart by His Spirit, he feels within him something that you cannot overthrow. "I was dark, and now I have light. I was afraid of God, and now I love Him. I was fond of sin, and now I hate it. I was blind, and now I see." Let us never rest till we know and feel within us some real work of the Holy Ghost. Let us not be content with the name and form of Christianity. Let us desire to have true experimental acquaintance with it. Feelings no doubt are deceitful, and are not everything in religion. But if we have no inward feelings about spiritual matters, it is a very bad sign. The hungry man eats, and feels strengthened; the thirsty man drinks, and feels refreshed. Surely the man who has within him the grace of God, ought to be able to say, "I feel its power." ================== Notes— v13.—[They brought to the Pharisees...blind.] The prime movers in this matter, seem to have been the neighbors of the blind man. They thought that so marvelous an event as this sudden cure demanded investigation. The "Pharisees" in this passage, if we may judge by the context, must have been the great council, or Sanhedrim, of the Jewish nation, the same body before whom our Lord made His defense, in the fifth chapter of this Gospel. At any rate, we can hardly imagine any other body at Jerusalem "excommunicating" a man. (See John 9:34.) Whitby observes how wonderfully the providence of God ordered things, that the Pharisees should be put to silence and open shame by a poor blind man! v14.—[And it was the Sabbath day, etc.] This seems specially mentioned by the Evangelist parenthetically for two reasons. (a) It proved our Lord's unvarying readiness to do works of mercy on the Sabbath Day. (b) It explains the bitter enmity of the Jews against our Lord in this chapter. They regarded Him as a breaker of the Sabbath. Assuming that there was no interval of time between the end of the last chapter and the beginning of this, it is remarkable how much our Lord did and said on this Sabbath day. From the beginning of the eighth chapter, down to the thirty-fifth verse of the ninth, the narrative at first sight seems to run on without a break. It certainly makes it rather doubtful whether there should not be a break or pause assumed at the end of the eighth chapter. Burkitt remarks, that one object of our Lord in working so many miracles on the Sabbath, was "to instruct the Jews in the true doctrines and proper duties of the Sabbath, and to let them know that works of necessity and mercy are very consistent with the due sanctification of the Sabbath. It is hard to find any time wherein charity is unseasonable; for as it is the best of graces, so its works are fittest for the best of days." Whitby thinks that our Lord frequently did miracles on the Sabbath, to impress on believing Jews the folly of the superstitious observance of it, and to prevent the misery they would run into if they persisted in an extravagant scrupulosity about the Sabbath, when days of vengeance came on Jerusalem. v15.—[Then again the Pharisees...sight.] The question asked of the healed man by the council of Pharisees, was precisely the same that had been asked by his neighbors: "Your eyes have been opened suddenly, though you were born blind: tell us how it was done." It is worthy of remark, that the Greek word which we render here and all through the chapter as "received sight," means literally no more than "looked up," or "saw again." This of course could not be precisely true and correct in the case of this man, as he had never seen, or used his eyes at all, and could not therefore see a second time. But it is useful to notice how here and elsewhere in Scripture the Holy Ghost uses the language which is most familiar and easily understood, even when it is not precisely and scientifically correct. And it is what we all do every day. We talk of the sun "rising," though we know well that strictly speaking it does not rise, and that what we see is the effect of the earth moving round the sun. Barnes observes, "The proper question to have been asked, was whether he had in fact been cured, and not in what way. The question about a sinner's conversion is, whether in fact it has been done, and not about the mode or manner in which it has been effected. Yet no small part of disputes among men are about the mode in which the Spirit renews the heart, and not about the fact that it is done." [He said unto them, etc.] The answer of the healed man is an honest, bold, plain repetition of the same story he had told already. The only difference is that he does not name "Jesus" here, but says "He" put clay, as if he knew his examiners would understand whom he meant. Or it may be that his mind was so full of his Benefactor that he omits to name Him, and takes for granted that all would know who He was. The simple straightforward boldness of this man, standing before the most formidable court of the Jews, and telling out his story, is very noteworthy. It is, moreover, a complete statement of facts, and consequences. "He put clay: I washed: I see." v16.—[Therefore said some, etc.] This verse brings forward prominently the existence of two classes among the Pharisees. The one was the great majority, consisting of hundreds of bigoted enemies of our Lord, ready to catch at any pretext for injuring His reputation and damaging His character. They said, "This Man is not of God. He is a wicked man, because He keepeth not the Sabbath day. A Prophet sent from God would not have done any work on the Sabbath."— This assertion, of course, was based on the false and groundless principle that works of mercy to the sick were a violation of the Fourth Commandment. According to Lightfoot, the Rabbins expressly forbid saliva to be applied to the eyelids on the Sabbath day. The other class, consisting of a small minority, raised the grave question, "How could a man, not sent by God, a wicked man, work such an astonishing miracle as this? If He were not commissioned and enabled by God, He could not possibly give sight to the blind. Surely He must be from God."— These must have been Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel, and others. Their line of argument is precisely that of Nicodemus in the famous visit to our Lord by night, when he said, "No man can do these miracles except God be with him." (John 3:2.) Three times in John's Gospel we find that expression, "There was a division among them." (Here, and John 7:43, and John 10:19.) The hesitating manner in which the better class of the council raise the question here, "How can a man," etc., is strongly indicative of a timid minority, who felt that the stream of feeling was all against them. It strikingly resembles the question of Nicodemus (John 7:51), "Doth our law judge any man," etc. One might almost think it was Nicodemus speaking here. In large assemblies of men convened to consider ecclesiastical and religious questions, we may confidently assume that there are always some present whose hearts are right, and who are willing to support the truth, even though they sit in bad company, and are for the present silenced and overawed. Gamaliel's conduct, in Acts 5:34, is an illustration of this. There is no warrant for staying away from assemblies and councils merely because we happen to be in a minority. Chrysostom remarks how "none of the assembly dared say what he wished openly, or in the way of assertion, but only in the way of doubt. One party wanted to kill our Lord, and the other to save Him. Neither spoke out." Bullinger observes, that "all divisions are not necessarily evil, nor all concord and unity necessarily good." v17.—[They say...blind man again.] This division among the members of the council had at least this good affect, that they found it necessary to go into the whole case more fully, and ask further questions. These very questions brought the reality of the miracle into fuller light than before. [What sayest thou...opened eyes.] This question must evidently mean, "What dost thou think about this Person, who, thou sayest, has opened thine eyes? Whom dost thou believe Him to be, seeing that He has wrought this cure?" The question is an inquiry, not about the reality of the miracle, but about the Person who is said to have performed it. It looks, according to some, like an intention to entrap the poor man into saying something about Jesus for which they could condemn Him. On the other hand, Chrysostom, Ferus, and Toletus argue that those who made the inquiry of this text must have been the party which favored our Lord. [He said...a prophet.] This expression was the beginning of faith in the healed man. It was a declaration of his own belief that the Person who had wrought such a great cure must be a Person specially raised by God to do great works, like Elijah or Elisha. We must not forget that in the present day we are apt to confine the word "prophet" to a man who foretells things to come. But the Bible use of the word is much wider. The "prophets" raised up in the Old Testament were by no means all foretellers of things to come. Preaching, warning, and miracle-working were the whole business of not a few. In this sense the man seems to have called our Lord "a Prophet." It was for what He had done rather than for what He had said. We should carefully note that the first idea about our Lord which the Jewish mind seemed ready to embrace, was that He was a "Prophet." Thus the multitude which escorted Him into Jerusalem said, "This is Jesus the Prophet of Nazareth" (Matthew 21:11); and again, "The multitude took Him for a Prophet" (Matthew 21:46); and again, "Others said it is a Prophet" (Mark 6:15); and again, "A great Prophet is risen up among us." (Luke 7:16). Even the two disciples going to Emmaus were only positive on one point: that Jesus had been "a Prophet mighty in word and deed." (Luke 24:19). But it was a higher step of faith to say that Jesus was "the Prophet" promised by Moses,— the Messiah. This the healed man did not yet say. As yet he only got so far as "a Prophet," not "the Prophet." Chemnitius remarks on this poor man's clear view of our Lord's greatness, that "you will often find more solid theological piety among tailors and shoemakers than among cardinals, bishops, and abbots." Adam Clarke says it was "a Jewish maxim that a prophet might dispense with the observance of the Sabbath." If the healed man referred to this, his answer was a silencing one, and put the Pharisees in a dilemma. Lampe also remarks that many things were allowed to prophets sent by God on an extraordinary mission, even about the observance of the ceremonial law, as we see in the history of David and Elijah. This gives great weight to the man's reply: "He is a Prophet." v18.—[But the Jews did not believe, etc.] Here, as elsewhere, we should mark the extraordinary unbelief of the Jewish people, and their obstinate determination to shut their eyes against light. It teaches the folly of supposing that mere evidence alone will ever make men Christians. It is the want of will to believe, and not the want of reasons for believing, that makes men infidels. "The Jews" here, as in other places in John's Gospel, mean the teachers of the Jewish nation at Jerusalem, and specially the Pharisees. The expression, "until they called," deserves special notice. We should remark that it does not mean that "after they called the man's parents, they believed,— that they were unbelieving up to the time that they called them, and then began to believe." On the contrary, the context shows that even after they had called them they continued unbelieving. Parkhurst observes that it is a form of speaking, "signifying an interval, but not necessarily excluding the time following." The expression throws light on Matthew 1:25. That well-known text must not be pressed too far. It is no certain proof that Mary had other children after Jesus was born. Compare 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Job 27:5; Isaiah 22:14; Matthew 5:26; Matthew 18:34. The word "called" probably implies the public call or summons of the man's parents to appear before the council, just as witnesses are called aloud by name to appear in our courts of justice. Gualter observes how close the resemblance was between the conduct of the Pharisees in this case, and that of the Romish Inquisition. The pertinacious, determined effort to condemn the innocent, and to deprive Christ of His glory, is painfully the same. Besser quotes a saying of the infidel Voltaire: "If in the market of Paris, before the eyes of a thousand men and before my own eyes, a miracle should be performed, I would much rather disbelieve the two thousand eyes and my own two, than believe it!" v19.—[They asked them, etc.] The enemies of our Lord over-reached themselves by their summoning the parents of the healed man. They brought publicly forward the two best possible witnesses as to the fact of the man's identity, as to the fact that he was born blind, and as to the fact that he now had his sight. So true is the saying, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." (1 Corinthians 3:19.) Chrysostom thinks that the expression, "whom ye say," insinuated that they supposed the parents to be impostors, and that "they were acting deceitfully, and plotting on behalf of Christ," by spreading a report that their son was born blind. The language of the verse seems to show that the healed man and his parents were at first confronted, and that the Pharisees pointed to him and asked, "Is this your son?" v20.—[His parents answered, etc.] The father and mother of the blind man made a plain statement of facts, that could not be contradicted. They placed it beyond a doubt that the man now standing before the Sanhedrim was one who, from the best possible evidence, they knew had been born blind. The fact of having a blind child is one about which no parent could be mistaken. v21.—[But by what means...who hath opened...we know not.] These words of the healed man's parents were probably the simple truth. The time was so short since the cure was wrought, that they might well be ignorant of the manner of it. Hastily summoned before the Sanhedrim, they might well have had no opportunity of conversing with their son, and as yet may have known nothing of the miracle. [He is of age, etc.] These words show the determination of the parents to have nothing more to do with their son's case than they could possibly help. They evidently regarded the council with the same undefined dread with which men at one time regarded the Inquisition in Spain. The word "age" is the same Greek word that in Matthew 6:27 is translated "stature." It is highly probable that in that text it would have been better rendered "age," as here. The words "he," "him," and "himself" in this clause are all emphatic, and all might be rendered "himself." A man was reckoned "of age" by the Jews when he was thirty. v22.—[These words spake...feared...Jews.] This sentence must refer to the latter part of the preceding verse. Fear of the leading Jews in the council of Pharisees made the parents refer their inquirers to their son. Four times in John's Gospel we have special mention made of the "fear of the Jews." Here, and John 7:13; John 12:42; and John 19:38. [The Jews had agreed, etc.] This is a striking example of the extreme littleness of unbelief, and the lengths to which hatred of Christ will go. To resolve on such a decision as this shows a settled determination not to be convinced. The punishment of being "put out of the synagogue," was a heavy one to the Jew. It was equivalent to being cut off from all communion with other Jews, and tantamount to excommunication. Those only who do anything for evangelizing the Jews now, can form any adequate idea of the trials which conversion to Christianity entails on them, and the dread in which they stand of being cut off from Israel. Trench says, "We must not understand that the Sanhedrim had formally declared Jesus to be an impostor and a false Christ, but only that so long as the truth or falsehood of His claim to be the Messiah was not clear, and they, the great tribunal, had not given a decision, none were to anticipate that decision, and the penalty of premature confession was to be excommunicated." v23.—[Therefore said, etc.] It was the fear of running the slightest risk of excommunication, or being even suspected of favoring the Healer of their son, that made the parents refer all inquiries to him, and refuse to offer any opinion about the means of his cure, whatever they may have felt. v24.—[Then again...called...blind.] This was a second summons into court. Very possibly the healed man had been carefully removed out of court, while his parents were being examined. But when nothing could be got out of them, there was no alternative but to submit him to a second process of cross-examination and intimidation. [And said...Give God...praise, etc.] This sentence admits of two interpretations. (a) Some, as Calvin, Chemnitius, Gualter, Ecolampadius, Beza, Piscator, Diodati, Aretius, Ferus, Maldonatus, Jansenius, Rollock, Alford, and Trench, regard it as a solemn form of adjuration, and think it parallel to Joshua's words to Achan (Joshua 7:19): "You stand in God's presence: give glory to Him by speaking the truth." This, however, makes the clause that follows rather unmeaning, and renders it necessary to supply a good deal to fill up the sense. (b) Others, as Chrysostom, Brentius, Musculus, Pellican, Vatablus, and Barradius, regard it as specially referring to the cure which had been performed. "Give God the honor and glory of your healing. He must have wrought the cure, and not this man who anointed your eyes with clay. He could not have wrought this cure, because he is a Sabbath-breaker, and therefore a sinner. A sinner like him could not have healed you." I rather prefer this view. Gualter and Musculus point out the odious affectation of zeal for God's glory which characterizes the conduct of many wicked persons in every age. Even the Spanish Inquisition professed a zeal for God's glory. This "we" here is emphatical in the Greek: "We, who are learned men, and ought to know best." v25.—[He answered...Whether...sinner...know not, etc.] The healed man's answer is a very simple, and yet very striking one. He tells his inquirers that the question whether Jesus is a sinner, is one he knows nothing about. But he does know the fact, that he himself was blind up to that very day, and that now he can see. He carefully avoids at present saying a word about the character of his Healer. The one point he sticks to is the reality of the miracle. He must believe his own senses. His senses told him that he was cured. The expression in every age has been regarded as a happy illustration of a true Christian's experience of the work of grace in his heart. There may be much about it that is mysterious and inexplicable to him, and of which he knows nothing. But the result of the Holy Ghost's work he does know and feel. There is a change somewhere. He sees what he did not see before. He feels what he did not feel before. Of that he is quite certain. There is a common and true saying among true Christians of the lower orders: "You may silence me, and beat me out of what I know: but you cannot beat me out of what I feel." The English translation of the last clause rather misses the brevity and force of the Greek. It would be more literally rendered, "Being blind, now I see." We see in these verses how much wiser the poor sometimes are than the rich. The man whom our Lord healed of his blindness was evidently a person of very humble condition. It is written that he was one who "sat and begged." (See John 9:8.) Yet he saw things which the proud rulers of the Jews could not see, and would not receive. He saw in our Lord's miracle an unanswerable proof of our Lord's divine commission. "If this Man were not of God," he cries, "He could do nothing." In fact from the day of his cure his position was completely altered. He had eyes, and the Pharisees were blind. The same thing may be seen in other places of Scripture. The servants of Pharaoh saw "the finger of God" in the plagues of Egypt, when their master's heart was hardened. The servants of Naaman saw the wisdom of Elisha's advice, when their master was turning away in a rage. The high, the great, and the noble are often the last to learn spiritual lessons. Their possessions and their position often blind the eyes of their understanding, and keep them back from the kingdom of God. It is written that "not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called." (1 Corinthians 1:26.) The Christian poor man never need be ashamed of his poverty. It is a sin to be proud, and worldly-minded, and unbelieving; but it is no sin to be poor. The very riches which many long to possess are often veils over the eyes of men's souls, and prevent their seeing Christ. The teaching of the Holy Ghost is more frequently to be seen among men of low degree, than among men of rank and education. The words of our Lord are continually proved most true: "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom of God."—"Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." (Mark 10:23. Matthew 11:25.) We see, secondly, in these verses, how cruelly and unjustly unconverted men will sometimes treat those who disagree with them. When the Pharisees could not frighten the blind man who had been cured, they expelled him from the Jewish Church. Because he manfully refused to deny the evidence of his own senses, they excommunicated him and put him to an open shame. They cast him out "as a heathen man and a publican." The temporal injury that such treatment did to a poor Jew was very great indeed. It cut him off from the outward privileges of the Jewish Church. It made him an object of scorn and suspicion among all true Israelites. But it could do no harm to his soul. That which wicked men bind on earth is not bound in heaven. "The curse causeless shall not come." (Proverbs 26:2.) The children of God in every age have only too frequently met with like treatment. Excommunication, persecution, and imprisonment have generally been favorite weapons with ecclesiastical tyrants. Unable, like the Pharisees, to answer arguments, they have resorted to violence and injustice. Let the child of God console himself with the thought that there is a true Church out of which no man can cast him, and a Church-membership which no earthly power can take away. He only is blessed whom Christ calls blessed; and he only is accursed whom Christ shall pronounce accursed at the last day. We see, thirdly, in these verses, how great is the kindness and condescension of Christ. No sooner was this poor blind man cast out of the Jewish Church than Jesus finds him and speaks words of comfort. He knew full well how heavy an affliction excommunication was to an Israelite, and at once cheered him with kind words. He now revealed Himself more fully to this man than He did to any one except the Samaritan woman. In reply to the question, "Who is the Son of God?" He says plainly, "Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee." We have here one among many beautiful illustrations of the mind of Christ. He sees all that His people go through for His sake, and feels for all, from the highest to the lowest. He keeps account of all their losses, crosses, and persecutions. "Are they not all written in His book?" (Psalms 56:8.) He knows how to come to their hearts with consolation in their time of need, and to speak peace to them when all men seem to hate them. The time when men forsake us is often the very time when Christ draws near, saying, "Fear not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee: yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness." (Isaiah 41:10.) We see, lastly, in these verses, how dangerous it is to possess knowledge, if we do not make a good use of it. The rulers of the Jews were fully persuaded that they knew all religious truth. They were indignant at the very idea of being ignorant and devoid of spiritual eyesight. "Are we blind also?" they cried. And then came the solemn sentence, "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth." Knowledge undoubtedly is a very great blessing. The man who cannot read, and is utterly ignorant of Scripture, is in a pitiable condition. He is at the mercy of any false teacher who comes across him, and may be taught to take up any absurd creed, or to follow any vicious practice. Almost any education is better than no education at all. But when knowledge only sticks in a man's head, and has no influence over his heart and life, it becomes a most perilous possession. And when, in addition to this, its possessor is self-conceited and self-satisfied, and fancies he knows everything, the result is one of the worst states of soul into which man can fall. There is far more hope about him who says, "I am a poor blind sinner and want God to teach me," than about him who is ever saying, "I know it, I know it, I am not ignorant," and yet cleaves to his sins.—The sin of that man "remaineth." Let us use diligently whatever religious knowledge we possess, and ask continually that God would give us more. Let us never forget that the devil himself is a creature of vast head-knowledge, and yet none the better for it, because it is not rightly used. Let our constant prayer be that which David so often sent up in the hundred and nineteenth Psalm. "LORD, teach me Thy statutes:—give me understanding:—unite my heart to fear Thy name." ================== Notes— v26.—[Then said they...How opened...eyes?] The enemies of our Lord renewed their examination of the healed man, by inquiries into the manner in which our Lord had opened his eyes. Their previous inquiry had been directed to the point "Who had done the miracle?" They now ask "How was it done?" The folly of wicked men comes out remarkably in this renewed examination. Had they let the matter drop at this point, they would not have exposed their own malevolent and unreasoning spirit. They madly rush on headlong, and are put to open shame by a poor and humble Jew. Let it be noted, that the word we have translated "then," is not so strong in the Greek, and does not mark time, but simply connects the verse with the preceding one. "And they said to him again." Let it be noted, that faith only looks to the result, and does not trouble itself about the manner in which it is brought about. Unbelief, on the contrary, refuses to look at the result, and excuses itself by raising difficulties about the manner. Let it be noted that in every age Satan never so completely outwits himself and defeats his own purpose, as when he presses persecution and annoyance against weak Christians. Hundreds learn lessons under the pressure of incessant attacks, which otherwise they would never learn at all. The very fact of being attacked calls out latent thought, energy, and courage. v27.—[He answered them, etc.] The patience of the healed man evidently began to be exhausted at this stage of the proceedings. This senseless repetition of questions, this redoubled effort to make him disbelieve his own senses, became more than he could bear. He seems to say, "I have told the whole story once, and I have nothing to add to it. Yet when I told it, you evidently did not listen to me. What is the use of telling it again? Why do you want to hear it a second time?"— "Ye would not hear," is of course equivalent to "ye would not believe." The expressions "would ye" and "will ye," are both the same verb in the Greek, and would be more literally rendered as a distinct verb, "do ye will." The last clause can hardly be taken in any other sense than a sarcastic one. It could hardly be a grave question. It was the natural sarcastic remark of a man wearied, irritated, and provoked by a long-drawn teazing repetition of questions. "One might almost think, from your repeated anxious questions, that you yourselves want to be Christ's disciples." Chrysostom remarks, "How strong is truth and how weak is falsehood! Truth, though she take hold only of ordinary men, makes them appear glorious; falsehood, even with the strong, makes them appear weak." v28.—[Then they reviled him, etc.] Here we see how one sharp word leads to another. Sarcasm from the lips of the healed man, produces abuse and reviling from his examiners. They were evidently indignant at the very idea of such wise men as they becoming disciples of Jesus. "Thou, poor ignorant creature, and such as thou, art disciples of Jesus. But we are not such fools. We are disciples of Moses, and want no other teacher." And yet in their blindness they did not see, and would not understand, that Jesus was the very Savior of whom Moses had written, and that every true disciple of Moses must necessarily be a disciple of Jesus. So easy it is to talk high-sounding ignorant phrases in religion, and yet be utterly in the dark! Brentius remarks how ready men are to maintain that they hold the old religion of their fathers, while in reality they do not know what it was. Thus the Pharisees talked of Moses, as if Moses was contrary to Christ. The Romanist does just the same when he talks of the "old religion." He knows not what the old religion was. Ferus points out how many of the words of Moses' law these men forgot and despised, even while they boasted of being his "disciples;" as Leviticus 19:14; Exodus 23:7. v29.—[We know that God spake, etc.] The meaning of this sentence seems to be, "We know that God commissioned Moses to be a lawgiver and teacher, and that in following Moses, we are pleasing God. But as for this Jesus, we know not who has commissioned Him, or who sent Him to teach, or by what authority He preaches and works miracles. In a word, we see no proof that He has come from God. We are not satisfied that He has any Divine commission." The expression "from whence He is," in this place cannot be interpreted as meaning "from what place." It must signify our Lord's commission,—who sent Him, and by whose authority He acts. So in another place, "the baptism of John, whence was it?" (Luke 20:4), means, "whence had it authority?" We should note here, how firmly implanted it was in the Jewish mind that Moses had received a revelation from God. "God spake unto Moses." v30.—[The man answered, etc.] In this verse the healed man begins a simple, yet unanswerable argument, which completely silenced his examiners.— "There is something very wonderful in this. It is an unmistakable fact that this Person has opened my eyes. He has, in short, worked an astonishing miracle; and yet, in the face of this miracle, you say that you do not know whence He is, or who gave Him His power." The word "ye," is here emphatical. "You, who are learned men, and rulers, and teachers, might have been expected to know whence this man comes." v31.—[Now we know that, etc.] In this verse the healed man continues his chain of reasoning.— "We all know, and it is an admitted principle among us, that God does not hear the prayer of wicked people, and give wicked people power to work miracles. The only people whom He hears and enables to do great works, are people who fear God, and habitually do God's will." The expression "now," in this verse, perhaps conveys too strong an idea of the meaning of the Greek word. The sentence would be more literally rendered, "and we know;" and would thus simply carry on one unbroken chain of argument. The principle that "God heareth not sinners," is here stated by the man as a great incontrovertible doctrine, which all Jews knew and admitted. It is hardly necessary to say that it did not mean that God is unwilling to hear the prayers of sinners who feel their sins, and cry to Him for pardon. It applies to sinners who do not feel their sins, and are living in sin, and are impenitent. Such persons God does not look on with favor, and will not enable to do miracles. That God will not hear impenitent sinners, is taught in such texts as Job 27:9; Job 35:12; Psalms 18:41; Psalms 34:15; Psalms 66:18; Proverbs 1:28; Proverbs 15:29; Proverbs 28:9; Isaiah 1:15; Jeremiah 11:11; Jeremiah 14:12; Ezekiel 8:18; Micah 3:4; Zechariah 7:13. The Pharisees knew this, and could not possibly deny it. The expression "a worshiper of God," means something far more than mere outward worship. It is equivalent to a God-fearing man,—one who really honors and reverences God. The expression "doeth His will," means one who habitually lives in the practice of God's preceptive will,—the things that God commands. Brentius illustrates this verse by contrasting God's readiness to hear Elijah when he worked a miracle on Carmel, with the useless cries of the worshipers of Baal on the same occasion. Ecolampadius observes, that hitherto the healed man evidently saw nothing higher in our Lord than a very good man, whose prayers God would hear. He did not yet see in Him one who wrought miracles by His own Divine power. Musculus observes, that it is the man who not only "knows" God's will, but practically "does" it, and obeys it, whom God hears. v32, v33.—[Since the world began, etc.] These two verses contain the conclusion of the healed man's argument. The sense is as follows: "To open the eyes of one born blind, is a work so entirely beyond the power of man, that no man has ever done it since the world began. Divine power alone could effect it. But this Man has done this work, and therefore must evidently be one sent and commissioned by God. If He were not of God He could do nothing miraculous, and at any rate nothing so miraculous as my cure." The expression "since the world began," would be more literally rendered, "from the age of the world:" i.e., from the beginning of. It is like Acts 3:21, Acts 15:18, and Ephesians 3:9. The concluding argument of the healed man is precisely that of Nicodemus, when he came to our Lord by night. "No man can do these miracles except God be with him." (John 3:2.) Augustine remarks, "This was frankly, firmly, and truly spoken. These things that were done by the Lord, how should they be done by any but God?" Brentius shows here the value of miracles as an evidence of Christ's Divine mission. He also shows that the miracles so-called, said to be worked by magicians and false teachers, are either impositions, or else are wrought in support of something contrary to Scripture, and are therefore not worthy of attention. He finally remarks, that if we are not to believe an angel speaking against the Gospel, much less should we believe a miracle, if worked to confirm something contrary to Scripture. Toletus remarks that at any rate there is no case in Scripture of any open sinner procuring a miracle to be worked in reply to his prayer. Whitby remarks, "We see here a blind man and unlearned, judging more rightly of Divine things than the whole learned Council of the Pharisees! Hence we learn that we are not always to be led by the authority of councils, popes, or bishops, and that it is not absurd for laymen sometimes to vary from their opinions, these great overseers being sometimes guilty of great over-sights." There is no weight in the objection raised by some modern German critics, that eminent surgeons have effected the restoration of sight to people born blind. If they have, it has certainly never been done instantaneously, and without the use of outward means, as in this mans' case. v34.—[They answered, etc.] The argument of the healed man was one which the Pharisees felt to be unanswerable. Silenced before the whole Council they turn on the speaker with anger and abuse. "Thou art a miserable wicked creature, entirely born in sin, and dost thou pretend to know better than us, and to teach us?" They then proceeded at once to excommunicate him. The expression "they cast him out," must surely mean much more than merely turning him out of the room or place where they were assembled. To my mind it means nothing less than a formal expulsion from the commonwealth of Israel, and the consequent degradation of the man. It must be admitted that Maldonatus and some others think it only means that "they turned him out of the room" where they were. But this does not agree with the context, and almost all commentators think "excommunication" is meant. It is held by many that the expression, "born in sin," was used with special reference to the healed man's old infirmity of blindness. "Thy very blindness shows thee to have been a very wicked man. It is God's stamp on thy wickedness. Body and soul are both polluted by sin." There may be a latent reference to the vulgar error referred to at John 9:2, that blindness was an evidence of God's special displeasure. The expression, "Dost thou teach us?" is precisely one of those which wicked people in possession of place, rank, dignity, and income, are fond of using about Reformers of the Church and independent thinkers.—"How can such an ignorant person as you pretend to know better than us, and teach us? We are high in office, and must know better than you!" Let us note that this resort to personal abuse and violent language is often a sure mark of a failing cause in religion. Inability to reply to argument is often the true cause of ill-temper and personalities. Truth can afford to be patient; error cannot. Let us note that persecution and excommunication are common weapons with the enemies of spiritual religion. When men cannot answer arguments they often try to silence and intimidate those who use them. The dread of excommunication with a Jew was second only to the dread of death. Calvin remarks, "It is certain that those who are not subject to Christ are deprived of the lawful power of excommunicating. Nor ought we to dread being excluded from their assemblies. since Christ, our Life and Salvation, was banished from them." Musculus observes that this excommunication could not have been without the vote of the majority of the Council. Truth is too often with minorities. Pellican remarks that "to be shut out from the communion of the wicked is no dishonor or loss." Ferus, a Romanist, says that this verse should teach the leaders of churches not to be hasty in excommunicating people, lest they commit as great a mistake as the Pharisees. Barradius, a Portuguese Romanist, makes strong remarks here on the great sin of unjust excommunication. He quotes the text in Samuel which says that the sons of Eli made men "abhor the offering of the LORD;" and applies to the same point the text in Canticles where the bride complains that the keeper and watchmen who ought to have helped, "smote and wounded her." (Song of Son 5:7.) Quesnel remarks that wicked pastors are always impatient that anyone should remind them of their duty. Lightfoot observes that this man was the first confessor who suffered for Christ's sake, as John the Baptist was the first martyr. Trench observes that the Pharisees in their rage forgot "that the two charges,—one, that the man had not been born blind and was an impostor; the other, that he bore the mark of God's anger in blindness reaching back to his birth,—will not agree together." v35.—[Jesus heard...cast him out.] An interval of time most probably elapsed between the last verse and the present one. Where our Lord was, at Jerusalem or elsewhere, and what He was doing during the interval, we are not told. We can hardly suppose that the events related in the present and following verses, and the former part of the tenth chapter, took place on the same day that the blind man was cured. There must have been a break. Moreover, the very expression before us shows that the excommunication had had time to be reported and known in Jerusalem. Making every allowance for the public notoriety of everything done by the Sanhedrim, we can hardly suppose that in a day when there was no newspaper, the treatment of the blind man would be public news and reported without some interval of time. As God, our Lord doubtless knew all that happened to the sufferer, but He did nothing till his excommunication was publicly reported. Burkitt observes, "O happy man! Having lost the synagogue, he finds heaven." Wordsworth observes, "If those who sit in Moses' seat teach things contrary to the law of Moses, and proceed to impose their false doctrines as terms of communion, if they will not receive Him of whom Moses wrote, and threaten with excommunication those who confess Jesus to be the Christ, then no desire of unity, no love of enemies, no fear of separation from parents and spiritual superiors, no dread of spiritual censures and penalties, must deter the disciples of Christ from confessing Him. Our Lord Himself has set the seal of His divine sanction on these principles." [And when He had found, etc.] We should note in this sentence our Lord's kindness and compassion. As soon as His people suffer for His name's sake He is ready to visit them and speak words of comfort and give special consolation. We see too an example of His zeal to turn temporal trials to spiritual gain. Like Him, we should be ready to say to sufferers, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God? The world fails thee. Turn to Christ, and seek rest." Chrysostom remarks, "They who for the sake of the truth and confession of Christ suffer anything and are insulted, these are especially honored. So it was here with the blind man. The Jews cast him out of the temple, and the Lord of the temple found him. He was dishonored by those who dishonored Christ, and was honored by the Lord of angels." We should note that this is one of the very few occasions on which our Lord called Himself directly "the Son of God." (See John 3:18; John 5:25; John 10:36; John 11:4.) The word "thou" here is emphatic. "Others are unbelieving. Dost thou believe?" v36.—[He answered and said, etc.] This is the language of a mind ignorant of many things, yet willing to be instructed. It is like Saul crying, "Who art Thou, Lord?" and the jailer saying, "What must I do?" When a man begins to inquire about Christ and ask who He is, it is always a hopeful symptom of his state of soul. It may be doubted whether "Lord" here would not have been better rendered "Sir." Chrysostom says, "The expression is that of a longing, inquiring soul." v37.—[And Jesus said, etc.] We should carefully notice the extraordinary fullness of the revelation which our Lord here made of Himself. In no case but this, and that of the Samaritan woman, do we find Him so unreservedly declaring His own Divinity and Messiahship. So true is it that "the meek He will guide in judgment," and that things "hid to the wise and prudent are revealed to babes." The poor and despised and friendless among mankind are often those whom He favors with special revelations of His kindness and mercy. (John 4:26. Matthew 5:10-12.) v38.—[And he said, Lord, I believe.] This immediate profession of faith seems to indicate that the man's mind had been prepared by the Holy Ghost during the interval of time since His cure. The more he thought over his miraculous healing, and the Person who had wrought it, the more ready he was to believe in Him as the Messiah. We must not, however, estimate too highly the extent of this man's faith. At any rate it had the germ and nucleus of all justifying faith about it,—a belief in our Lord as the Messiah. [And he worshiped Him.] This seems to have been something more than an action of respect and reverence to a man. It looks like the worship given to One who was felt to be very God. Our Lord accepts it, and says not one word to check it. We cannot suppose that Paul or Peter or John would have allowed a fellow-man to give them "worship." (See Acts 10:25-26, and Acts 14:14-15; Revelation 19:10, and Revelation 22:9.) Chrysostom remarks how few of those whom our Lord miraculously healed, worshiped Him as this man did. Cocceius remarks that when we consider that this act of worship follows immediately on a full profession of faith in Jesus as the "Son of God," it cannot be lightly passed over as a mere mark of respect. Ferus observes that there is a thing said of this worshiper which is said of no one else who "worshiped" Christ. He said, "I believe," before he did it, and I believe in the "Son of God." Poole observes that "although the word 'worshiped' in the Greek is a word used sometimes to signify that civil respect which men show to their superiors, yet it cannot be so interpreted in this place, considering what went before." v39.—[And Jesus said, For judgment, etc.] We must not suppose that there is any contradiction between these words and those in John 3:17, and John 12:47. It was quite true that our Lord had not come into the world to be a Judge, but a Savior. Yet He had come to produce a judgment, or distinction, or division between class and class of characters, and to be the cause of light breaking in on some minds which before His coming could not see, and of blindness covering other minds which before His coming flattered themselves that they were full of light. In this the expression is very parallel to that of Simeon (Luke 2:35), "The thoughts of many hearts were revealed by His coming." Humble-minded ignorant people had light revealed to them. Proud self-righteous people were given over to judicial blindness. (See Matthew 11:25.) And is not this judgment a common consequence of Christ's Gospel coming to a place or a people for the first time? Minds previously quite dead receive sight. Minds previously self-satisfied and proud of their own light are given over to utter darkness and left behind. Those who once saw not, see. Those who fancied themselves clear-sighted are found blind. The same fire which melts wax hardens the clay. Let it be noted that the Greek word rendered "might be made" would be more literally translated "might become." I do not mean to say that in no case does God ever give over people to blindness, by a kind of judgment, on account of their hardness and impenitence. But we should carefully observe how rarely Scripture speaks of it as God's act. Thus here it is not literally true that He "makes" them blind, but that they "became" blind. Augustine remarks, "Who are those that see? Those who think they see, who believe they see." He also says, "The judgment which Christ hath brought into the world is not that wherewith He shall judge the quick and the dead in the end of the world. It is a work of discrimination rather, by which He discerneth the cause of them which believe from that of the proud who think they see, and therefore are worse blinded." Zwingle remarks, "Judgment is here taken for discrimination, or separation into classes." Ferus says much the same. Chemnitius thinks that our Lord spoke these words with special reference to the false and unjust judgment of excommunication, which the Pharisees had just passed. It is as though He would say, "True judgment, a right discrimination into classes, is my prerogative. The excommunication of a Pharisee is worthless." Musculus and Gualter think that "judgment" here means the eternal decree of God. "I came into the world to carry out God's eternal purposes, which are that the wise and prudent should remain in darkness, truth should be revealed to babes." But this seems far-fetched. Poole says, "The best notion of 'judgment' here is their's who interpret it of the spiritual government of the world, committed to Christ, and managed by Him with perfect rectitude and equity. One eminent part of this was His publishing the Gospels, the law of faith. The result of which is, that many spiritually blind, and wholly unable to see the way to eternal life, might be enlightened with saving knowledge, and that many who think they see should by their obstinate infidelity become more blind than they were from their birth. Not that I cast any such evil influence on them, but this happeneth through their own sore eyes." Whitby remarks that the Greek conjunction here rendered "that" is not causal, but only consequential; as when Christ said, "I came not to send peace, but a sword," meaning, the consequence and result of my coming will be to send a sword, and not the object of my coming. He also thinks that the verse has a wide application to the Gentiles sitting in darkness being enlightened by Christ's coming, while the Jews were blinded. Hengstenberg says, "Those that see are the Jews, in contradistinction to the Gentiles." Burgon remarks, "Judgment is not used here in an active sense. It is the condemnation implied by severing men into good and bad, which was one consequence (not the purpose) of Christ's coming into the world.—When Christ came into the world, men promptly showed themselves to belong to the state of darkness or of light, and by their arranging themselves in two great classes, anticipated their own final sentence."—"The blind (that is, simple and ignorant, yet meek and faithful men) saw; while the seeing (that is, vain pretenders to discernment, proud presumptuous persons) were made blind." v40.—[And some...Pharisees...heard...words.] This sentence literally rendered would be, "Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard." It seems to show that here, as on all other occasions, some of the party of the Pharisees were in the crowd which hung round our Lord, narrowly watching all He said and did, and eagerly catching at anything which might give them an advantage against Him. It ought to make us feel the immense difficulty of our Lord's position. He was always attended by enemies, and spoke and acted under the eyes of people desiring to do Him harm. It also teaches us that we must not cease from efforts to do good, because many of our hearers are unbelieving. [And said...Are we blind also?] This question cannot possibly be taken as a humble, anxious inquiry. It is rather the sarcastic, sneering inquiry of men whose consciences were pricked by our Lord's words, and who felt that He was condemning them: "And in what class do you place us? Are we among those whom you call blind? Do you mean to say that we, who are Doctors of the Law, see and understand nothing?"—Paul's words to the unbelieving Jew should be remembered here: "Thou art confident that thou art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness." (Romans 2:19.) Blindness was probably the last thing which the Pharisees would allow could be predicated of them. Augustine remarks, "There are many, who according to common usage, are called good people: good men, good women, harmless, honoring their parents, not committing adultery, doing no murder, not stealing, not bearing false witness, and in a sort observing the other duties commanded in the law, and yet are not Christians. And these commonly give themselves airs like the Pharisees here, saying, 'Are we blind also?' " Ferus observes, "This is just the ancient arrogance of the Jews." Jones of Nayland makes the pious remark, "Give us, O Lord, the sight of this man who had been blind from birth, and deliver us from the blindness of his judges, who had been learning all their lives, and yet knew nothing. And if the world should cast us out, let us be found of Thee, whom the world crucified." v41.—[Jesus said unto them, etc.] Our Lord's answer to the Pharisees is a very remarkable and elliptical one. It may be thus paraphrased: "Well would it be for you, if you were really blind and ignorant. If you were really ignorant, you would be far less blameworthy than you are now. If you were really blind, you would not be guilty of the sin of willful unbelief, as you are now. But unhappily, you say that you know the truth, and see the light, and are not ignorant, even while you are rejecting Me. This self-satisfied state of mind is the very thing which is ruining you. It makes your sin abide heavily on you." It is almost needless to say that our Lord did not mean that ignorance makes a man entirely free from guilt. He only meant that a really ignorant man is much less guilty than one who has light and knowledge, but does not improve and use them. No man's case is so hopeless as that of the self-confident man, who says that he knows everything, and wants no light. Such a man's sin abides on him, and, unless repented of, will sink him into the pit. Let us note what a heavy condemnation this text contains for those professing Christians who are constantly comforting themselves by saying, "We know," "We are not ignorant," "We see the truth," while yet they lazily sit still in irreligion, and make no attempt to obey. Such persons, however little they think it, are far more guilty before God than the poor heathen who never hear truth at all. The more light a man has, the more sin, if he does not believe. To infer the salvation of all the unconverted heathen from this text would be unwarrantable, and going much too far. The worst heathen man has sufficient light to judge and condemn him at last, and far more than he lives up to. But it is not too much to say that an ignorant heathen is in a far more hopeful condition than a proud, self-satisfied, self-righteous, unconverted Christian. Brentius thinks that the expression, "if ye were blind," means "if ye would confess your blindness," and that "to say we see," is equivalent to a "refusal to acknowledge ignorance and need." Chemnitius observes that the expression of this verse teaches that there are two sorts of sinners in this world,—those who sin from ignorance and infirmity, and those who sin against light and knowledge, and that they must be regarded and dealt with accordingly. Musculus remarks, that nothing seems to gall men so much as the imputation of ignorance and want of knowledge of the truth. The very men who are unmoved if charged with immoral actions, such as simony, adultery, gluttony, or misuse of ecclesiastical property, are furious if told that they are dark and blind about doctrine. The expression "your sin remaineth," is very worthy of notice. It teaches the solemn truth that the sins of impenitent and unconverted people are upon them, unforgiven, and not taken away. It condemns the modern idea that all sins are already forgiven and pardoned on account of Christ's death, and all men justified, and that the only thing required is to believe it and know it. On the contrary, our sins are upon us, and remain upon us until we believe. Ferus calls it "a terrible saying." Tholuck remarks on the whole chapter, "The narrative of this miracle has a special value in apologetics. How often do we hear the wish expressed, that Christ's miracles had been put on documentary record, and had been subjected to a thorough judicial investigation. Here we have the very thing that is desired: judicial personages, and these, too, the avowed enemies of Christ, investigate a miracle in repeated hearings, and yet it holds its ground. A man blind from his birth was made to see!"—No wonder that German skeptics, like Strauss and Bauer, are driven to assert that the whole narrative is a fabrication. In leaving this chapter, it is worth remembering that this is that one of our Lord's miracles about which nearly all commentators have agreed that it has a spiritual signification, and is emblematic of spiritual truth. Lampe remarks, that even those writers who are ordinarily most averse to spiritualizing and accommodating, admit that the healing of this blind man is a picture of the illumination of a sinner's soul. His healing is a lively figure of conversion. It is curious that we hear no more of this man who was healed. It is pleasant, however, to bear in mind the thought that there were many who believed in Christ and were true disciples, whose names and lives have never come down to us. We must not suppose that there were none saved but those whose histories are recorded in the New Testament.—The last day, we may well believe, will show that this man was only a type of a large class, whose names were written in the Book of Life, though not recorded for our learning by the inspired writers. The chapter we have now begun is closely connected with the preceding one. The parable before us was spoken with direct reference to the blind teachers of the Jewish Church. The Scribes and Pharisees were the people our Lord had in view, when He described the false shepherd. The very men who had just said "We see," were denounced with holy boldness, as "thieves and robbers." We have, for one thing, in these verses, a vivid picture of a false teacher of religion. Our Lord says that he is one who "enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up some other way." The "door," in this sentence, must evidently mean something far more than outward calling and commission. The Jewish teachers, at any rate, were not deficient in this point: they could probably trace up their orders in direct succession to Aaron himself. Ordination is no proof whatever that a man is fit to show others the way to heaven. He may have been regularly set apart by those who have authority to call ministers, and yet all his life may never come near the door, and at last may die nothing better than "a thief and a robber." The true sense of the "door," must be sought in our Lord's own interpretation. It is Christ Himself who is "the door." The true shepherd of souls is he who enters the ministry with a single eye to Christ, desiring to glorify Christ, doing all in the strength of Christ, preaching Christ's doctrine, walking in Christ's steps, and laboring to bring men and women to Christ. The false shepherd of souls is he who enters the ministerial office with little or no thought about Christ, from worldly and self-exalting motives, but from no desire to exalt Jesus, and the great salvation that is in Him. Christ, in one word, is the grand touchstone of the minister of religion. The man who makes much of Christ is a pastor after God's own heart, whom God delights to honor. The minister who makes little of Christ is one whom God regards as an impostor,—as one who has climbed up to his holy office not by the door, but by "some other way." The sentence before us is a sorrowful and humbling one. That it condemns the Jewish teachers of our Lord's time, all men can see. There was no "door" in their ministry. They taught nothing rightly about Messiah. They rejected Christ Himself when He appeared.—But all men do not see that the sentence condemns thousands of so-called Christian teachers, quite as much as the leaders and teachers of the Jews. Thousands of ordained men in the present day know nothing whatever about Christ, except His name. They have not entered "the door" themselves, and they are unable to show it to others. Well would it be for Christendom if this were more widely known, and more seriously considered! Unconverted ministers are the dry-rot of the Church. When the "blind lead the blind," both must fall into the ditch. If we would know the value of a man's ministry, we must never fail to ask, Where is the Lamb? Where is the Door? Does he bring forward Christ, and give Him his rightful place? We have, for another thing, in these verses, a peculiar picture of true Christians. Our Lord describes them as sheep who "hear the voice of a true Shepherd, and know His voice;" and as "sheep who will not follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers." The thing taught in these words is a very curious one, and may seem "foolishness" to the world. There is a spiritual instinct in most true believers, which generally enables them to distinguish between true and false teaching. When they hear unsound religious instruction, there is something within them which says, "This is wrong." When they hear the real truth as it is in Jesus, there is something in their hearts which responds, "This is right." The careless man of the world may see no difference whatever between minister and minister, sermon and sermon. The poorest sheep of Christ, as a general rule, will "distinguish things that differ," though he may sometimes be unable to explain why. Let us beware of despising this spiritual instinct. Whatever a sneering world may please to say, it is one of the peculiar marks of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. As such, it is specially mentioned by John, when he says, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." (1 John 2:20.) Let us rather pray for it daily, in order that we may be kept from the influence of false shepherds. To lose all power of distinguishing between bitter and sweet, is one of the worst symptoms of bodily disease. To be unable to see any difference between law and gospel, truth and error, Protestantism and Popery, the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of man, is a sure proof that we are yet dead in heart, and need conversion. We have, lastly, in these verses, a most instructive picture of Christ Himself. He utters one of those golden sayings which ought to be dear to all true Christians. They apply to people as well as to ministers. "I am the door: by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." We are all by nature separate and far off from God. Sin, like a great barrier-wall, rises between us and our Maker. The sense of guilt makes us afraid of Him. The sense of His holiness keeps us at a distance from Him. Born with a heart at enmity with God, we become more and more alienated from Him by practice, the longer we live. The very first questions in religion that must be answered, are these: "How can I draw near to God? How can I be justified? How can a sinner like me be reconciled to my Maker?" The Lord Jesus Christ has provided an answer to these mighty questions. By His sacrifice for us on the cross, He has opened a way through the great barrier, and provided pardon and peace for sinners. He has "suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God." (1 Peter 3:18.) He has opened a way into the holiest, through His blood, by which we may draw near to God with boldness, and approach God without fear. And now He is able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him. In the highest sense He is "the door." No one can "come to the Father" but by Him. Let us take heed that we use this door, and do not merely stand outside looking at it. It is a door free and open to the chief of sinners:—"If any man enter in by it, he shall be saved." It is a door within which we shall find a full and constant supply for every want of our souls. We shall find that we can "go in and out," and enjoy liberty and peace. The day comes when this door will be shut for ever, and men shall strive to enter in, but not be able. Then let us make sure work of our own salvation. Let us not stand tarrying without, and halting between two opinions. Let us enter in and be saved. ================== Notes— v1.—[Verily...I say...you.] Three things must be carefully remembered, if we would rightly understand the first nine verses of this chapter. Inattention to them has caused much confused and inconsistent interpretation. (a) For one thing, the passage is closely connected with the last chapter. The opening sentence should be read on, without break or separation between, together with John 9:41. Our Lord is still speaking to the hostile Pharisees who asked, "Are we blind also?" and got the answer, "Ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."— It is to them that He goes on to say, "I say unto you, he that entereth not in by the door, is a thief and a robber." He is not so much comforting His disciples now, as rebuking and exposing His enemies. (b) For another thing, the passage is entirely a parable, or allegory. (See John 10:6.) In interpreting it, like almost all our Lord's parables, the one great lesson should be kept in view, which is the key-note to the whole. We must not press every detail and little point too far, and try to attach a spiritual meaning to the lesser parts of the picture. Those who do so always run aground in their exposition, and get into difficulties. To this parable, if any, the old quaint sayings are applicable: "No parable stands on four legs."— "Squeeze parables too far, and you will draw blood from them, and not milk." Calvin remarks wisely, "It is useless to scrutinize too closely every part of this parable. Let us rest satisfied with this general view, that as Christ states a resemblance between the Church and a fold (a sheepfold, in which God assembles all His people), so He compares Himself to a door, because there is no other entrance into the Church but by Himself. Then it follows that they are good shepherds, who lead men straight to Christ; and that they are truly gathered into Christ's fold, so as to belong to His flock, who devote themselves to Christ alone." (c) For another thing, the object that our Lord had in view, in speaking this parable, must be kept steadily before our eyes. That object was to show the entire unfitness of the Pharisees to be pastors and teachers of the Jews, because they had not taken up their office in the right spirit, and with a right understanding of the work they had to do. He is not in this part speaking of Himself as "the Shepherd," but as "the Door:" only as the Door. What Christ is as a "Shepherd," comes afterward; what Christ is as "the Door," is the one point of the first nine verses. The "progressive" character of our Lord's discourses recorded in John, is strikingly illustrated in this chapter. Starting from a very simple statement, our Lord goes on to speak of the highest truths. We see the same in the fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters. This is one of the twenty-four places in John's Gospel, where the double "verily" comes in. Here, as elsewhere, it always prefaces some statement of more than ordinary importance and solemnity. [He that entereth not, etc.] Our Lord here appeals to the common experience of His hearers. They all knew well that anyone who was seen entering a sheepfold by climbing over the wall or fence of enclosure, and not by going through the door, would be justly suspected of being a thief. Every true shepherd, as a matter of course, makes use of the door. The "door" He afterwards interprets to mean Himself. The latent thought evidently is, that any teacher of religion who does not take up and discharge his office with faith in Christ and His atonement, and with an aim to glorify Christ, is unfit for his business, and unable to do any good. Instead of being a shepherd who helps and feeds, he is no better than a "robber," who does harm. Instead of saving souls, he kills them. Instead of bringing life, he brings death to his hearers. Some, as Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact, and Maldonatus, think the "door" means the Scriptures. Others, as Tholuck and Hengstenberg, think the "door" means a proper divine call to office. Both views seem to me unnatural and incorrect. Augustine observes, "Christ's fold is the Catholic Church. Whoso would enter the fold, let him enter in by the door: let him preach very Christ. Let him not only preach very Christ, but seek Christ's glory, not his own."— He says, again, "I, seeking to enter into your hearts, preach Christ: if I preach other than that, I shall be striving to climb in some other way. Christ is my Door; through Christ I win your hearts." Language borrowed from the care of sheep and sheepfolds, would be much more intelligible in Palestine than it is here in England. Keeping sheep was much more common there than in our climate. Folds, doors, shepherds, thieves climbing over some other way, would be points familiar to most Jews. Moreover, the use of such language in speaking of spiritual things, would be peculiarly intelligible to all who had read Jeremiah 23:1-40, Ezekiel 34:1-31, and Zechariah 11:1-17. Brentius remarks on the condescension of our Lord in borrowing spiritual lessons from such humble sources: "What is more low than a shepherd's condition? Every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians. What more dull and stupid than a sheep? Yet here is a picture of Christ and believers! Sir Isaac Newton, in his book on Daniel, supposes that our Lord, in choosing the subject of this parable, had before His eyes the many sheepfolds near the temple and about Jerusalem, where sheep were kept ready to be sold for sacrifice. The expression, "some other way," seems to me purposely very wide. Men may become teachers of the Church from many different motives, and in many different frames of mind. Some may be skeptical, some formalists, some worldly; but all alike are wrong, if they do not enter office "through the Door," viz., by Christ. The word rendered "the same," would be more literally translated, "that man." The expression, "thief and robber," is very strong, and supplies a striking instance of the use of a parable to convey indirectly a sharp and severe rebuke. Of course, our Lord could hardly have said to the Pharisees, "You are thieves and robbers." Yet by use of a parable, He says what is tantamount to it. Let it be noted that these strong epithets show plainly that there are times when it is right to rebuke sharply. Flattering everybody, and complimenting all teachers who are zealous and earnest, without reference to their soundness in the faith, is not according to Scripture. Nothing seems so offensive to Christ as a false teacher of religion, a false prophet, or a false shepherd. Nothing ought to be so much dreaded in the Church, and, if needful, be so plainly rebuked, opposed, and exposed. The strong language of our Reformers, when writing against Romish teachers, is often blamed more than it ought to be. The Greek word rendered "thief," implies secret fraud and dishonesty. The word rendered "robber," implies more open violence. There are false teachers of both sorts: open Papists and open Skeptics, semi-Papists and semi-Skeptics. All are alike dangerous. Augustine observes, "Let the Pagans, the Jews, the heretics say, 'We lead a good life.' If they enter not by the door, what availeth it? A good life only profiteth if it lead to life eternal. Indeed, those cannot be said to lead a good life, who are either blindly ignorant of, or willfully despise, the end of good living. No one can hope for eternal life who knows not Christ, who is the life, and by that door enters the fold." Hammond alone among commentators applies this verse and the four following entirely to Christ Himself, and considers "the door" to mean the proper evidence of miracles and doctrine. I cannot see this at all. Bishop Burnet remarks that this parable is the passage above all others which both Fathers and modern writers have chiefly used, in order to show the difference between good and bad ministers. Wordsworth calls the whole chapter "a divine pastoral to Bishops, priests, and deacons." v2.—[He that entereth in by the door, etc.] This verse contains the converse of the preceding verse. He that is seen entering the sheepfold by the one proper entrance, the door, may be set down as a true shepherd. Such a man, being duly commissioned by the owner of the flock, and recognized by the sheep as their pastor and friend, has no need to enter clandestinely, like a thief, or by violence, as a robber. The word "the" before shepherd, is not in the Greek. It should be simply, "a shepherd." The omission of the article seems intentional, to show that our Lord is describing true "shepherds of sheep" generally, and not Himself. v3.—[To him...porter openeth, etc.] The whole of this verse is meant to show the character of a true shepherd of sheep, in four respects. (a) The porter opens the gate to him, knowing by his step and manner of approach, that he is a friend, and not an enemy. (b) The sheep recognize his voice, and attend to what he says. (c) He, knowing all his flock individually, calls each sheep by his own peculiar name. (d) He leads them out to feed, desiring daily to promote their health and well-being. In all these four points he is unlike the thief and robber. The different customs of Eastern countries, as compared to our own, must be carefully kept in mind, to understand the expressions of this verse. A fold in Palestine was a space enclosed by high walls, not by low hurdles. It had a gate guarded by a porter at night, as the sheep could not be safely left alone. An Eastern shepherd knows each sheep in his flock, and often has a name for each one. The sheep are led, and not driven. About "the porter who opens," in this verse, opinions differ. Most commentators hold that the "porter" means the Holy Ghost, who calls true ministers into the Church, and "opens hearts;" and that the sense is, "to a true pastor the Holy Ghost gives a call to his office, and makes a way into the hearts of hearers." This no doubt is excellent divinity, but I cannot think our Lord meant anything of the kind. The "porter" here is not said to call the pastor, but to open when the pastor comes; nor yet to open hearts, but the door of the fold, through which the true pastor enters.— The view of Wordsworth, also held by Augustine, Rupertus, Bullinger, and Flacius,— that the "porter" is Christ Himself, who is not only "Door," but "Porter" also,— does not appear to me necessary. I prefer, with Glassius, Grotius, Hutcheson, and Bloomfield, regarding the whole sentence as a subordinate feature in the parable, signifying that a true shepherd of sheep not only enters by the lawful door, but that every facility is made for his entrance. Some, as Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact, think the "porter" may mean "Moses." Others, as Ecolampadius, Lampe, Webster, think the "porter" means the ministers and teachers of the Church, who have the power of the keys, and the right to admit pastors. Others, as Gomarus, Brentius, Maldonatus, Hall, Whitby, Bengel, and Hengstenberg, think the "porter" is God the Father. The expression "his own sheep," must not be pressed too far. It simply means that a real shepherd, according to Eastern custom, knowing his own flock individually by name, calls them at once by their names, and proves his relation to them by so doing. If not his own, he could not do so. v4.—[And when he putteth forth, etc.] This verse is simply a continuation of the description of a true and faithful shepherd of sheep. Whenever such a one takes his flock out to pasture, he walks before them, as an Eastern shepherd always does, never requiring them to go where he does not first go himself. Such a shepherd the sheep follow with implicit confidence, and knowing his voice, go wherever he calls them. The words of Moses should be read: "Let the LORD set a man over the congregation, which may go out before them, and which may go in before them, and which may lead them out, and which may bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD be not as sheep which have no shepherd." (Numbers 27:16-17.) That Eastern shepherds "lead" their sheep, is clear from Exodus 3:1, "He led the flock;" and Psalms 23:2, "He leadeth me." v5.—[And a stranger will they not follow, etc.] This verse concludes the picture of a true shepherd and his flock. It was a fact well-known to all our Lord's hearers, that sheep accustomed to one shepherd's voice would not obey a stranger's voice, but would rather be frightened at it. Just so true Christians have a spiritual taste and discernment by which they distinguish a false teacher, and will not hear him. "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things." (1 John 2:20.) The poor and illiterate believers often illustrate this in a very extraordinary way. Brentius observes here the singular faculty which sheep possess of always knowing and recognizing the voice of their own shepherd. He also notices the extraordinary knowledge that the lamb has of its own mother's bleat among a thousand others, as a curious characteristic of an animal in many respects dull and stupid. Scott observes that this verse justifies true Christians in not listening to false teachers. For leaving their parish church perhaps, under these circumstances, many reproach them. Yet the very men who reproach them would not trust their worldly affairs to an ignorant and dishonest lawyer, or their bodies to an incompetent doctor! Can it be wrong to act on the same principles for our souls? Besser observes, "Sheep flee from a false shepherd. They will not say, it is enough if we do not follow this strange preacher in those points in which he holds forth unsound teaching. They will have nothing at all to do with him. They will flee from him as from a contagious disease." (2 Timothy 2:17.) Bickersteth observes that this verse, and the third, throw light on the pastoral office of ministers. "How much of ministerial influence depends on personal knowledge. Great is the hindrance to the influence when an overgrown population renders it impossible." v6.—[This parable...Jesus...them.] The word rendered "parable" here hardly bears the sense of the expression. It is rather "allegory," or figurative picture. However, it clearly settles that the whole passage must be taken as a picture of spiritual things, and must be carefully handled, and not interpreted too literally. The Greek word used by John for "parable" is not used in any other Gospel. [But they understood not...unto them.] The Pharisees appear to have failed in seeing the application of the parable. This is curious, when we remember how quickly they saw the application to themselves of the parable of the husbandmen who killed the heir of the vineyard. But nothing seems to blind men's eyes so much as pride of office. Wrapped up in their conceit of their own knowledge and dignity, they did not see that they themselves who pretended to be leaders and teachers of the Jewish flocks were not shepherds, but "thieves and robbers," doing more harm than good. They did not see that the fatal defect in their own qualification for office was ignorance of Christ and want of faith in Him. They did not see that no true sheep of Christ could be expected to hear, follow, or obey their teaching. Above all, they did not see that in excommunicating the poor blind man whom our Lord had healed, they were just proving themselves to be "thieves and robbers," and injuring one whom they ought to have helped. If even One who "spake as never man spake" was not always understood, ministers cannot be surprised if they find they are often not understood now. How little of a sermon is understood, few preachers have the least idea! Ferus remarks that our Lord's hearers must have been blind not to see that their own prophet Ezekiel had already shown the application of the parable. (Chapter 34.) Lampe thinks they knew that our Lord was speaking of them, but could not fully comprehend the application of the parable. v7.—[Then said Jesus...again.] Here we see the condescension and patience of our Lord. Seeing His hearers not able to understand Him, He proceeds to explain His meaning more fully. This is an example for all teachers of religion. Without frequent repetition and simplification spiritual lessons can never be taught. [Verily verily...you.] Once more this solemn expression is used, and again to the same hearers, the Pharisees. [I am the door of the sheep.] Here is plain exposition. Jesus here declares that He Himself is the Door through whom, and by faith in whom, both shepherd and sheep must pass, if they would go inside God's fold. "Every single sheep must enter through Me, if he would join God's flock. Every teacher who wishes to be a shepherd over God's flock, must enter his office looking to Me." This high claim of dignity must have sounded startling to the Pharisees! A higher claim we can hardly conceive. None but One, even the Divine Messiah, could have used such an expression. No prophet or apostle ever did. At first sight it seems strange that our Lord says, "I am the Door of the sheep," and not simply "the Door." But I think it is meant to teach that the Door is for the benefit of the sheep more than the shepherd, and that He Himself is given more particularly for all His people than for His ministers. Ministers are only servants. The flock might possibly do without them, but they could not do without the flock. Bullinger calls attention to the many beautiful figures under which our Lord represented Himself and His office to the Jews, in John's writings. The Bread, the Living Water, the Light of the World, the Door, the Shepherd, are all in five chapters of this Gospel. Musculus observes that the simple view of Christ being "the Door," is that He is the Mediator between God and man. Webster observes, "It is worthy of remark that in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:13-17), the description of the strait gate and narrow way immediately precedes the warning against false prophets and ravening wolves." The same also may be seen here. v8.—[All that ever came before Me, etc.] These words, "All, before Me," must evidently be limited or qualified. They cannot be taken in their fullest sense. The prophets and John the Baptist were not thieves and robbers. It cannot well be taken to mean, "All who have claimed to be the Messiah." There is no evidence that many claimants did appear before our Lord, if any. Besides, the word "are," in the present tense, seems to exclude those who lived before our Lord's time. The great knot of the difficulty lies in the words, "came before Me." The Greek word rendered "before," has only four meanings: (1) before in point of time; (2) before in point of place; (3) before in point of dignity and honor; (4) before in the way of substitution. Of these, the first two seem out of the question, and we are shut up to the last two. I can only conjecture that the sentence must be paraphrased in this way: "All who have come into the Church professing to be teachers, claiming honor for themselves instead of Me, or honoring anything in preference to Me, such as you Pharisees,— all such are not true shepherds, but thieves and robbers." I can see no better solution, and I admit that the sentence is a difficulty. Some, as Chrysostom and Theophylact, think "thieves and robbers" mean Theudas, Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:36-37), and others like them. Euthymius remarks that "all" here must not be taken literally, but is a Hebraism meaning, "Anyone who does not come by Me is a thief," etc. Theophylact observes that the Manichean heretics wrested this text into a proof of their fanatical view, that the Old Testament prophets were not sent by God! Luther says, "These thieves and robbers form at all times the great majority in the world, and nothing better can they be as long as they are not in Christ. In fact the world will have such wolf's preaching, and indeed desires no better, because it hears not Christ nor regards Christ. It is no wonder that true Christians and their pastors are so few." Calvin remarks, "That no man may be moved by the consideration that there have been teachers in all ages who gave themselves no concern whatever about directing men to Christ, Christ expressly states that it is no matter how many there may have been of this description, or how early they began to appear. There is but one Door, and all who leave it, and make openings or breaches in the walls, are thieves." Lightfoot thinks that our Lord refers to the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, who had long misled the Jews before Christ came, and that they were the three false shepherds whose final casting off is foretold in Zechariah 11:8. The expression, "The sheep did not hear them," must mean, that true believers, when our Lord came on earth, such as Simeon, Anna, and others, had ceased to put any confidence in the commissioned teachers of the Jews, and were like sheep without a shepherd. The word "sheep," in this explanatory verse, must evidently be taken in a spiritual sense, and can only mean true believers. Mere outward members of the Church, without faith and grace, are not "sheep." "Sheep," says Hengstenberg, "in the discourses of Christ, are always the faithful members of God's kingdom, the company of believers." Alford says, "The sheep throughout this parable are not the mixed multitude of good and bad; but the real sheep, the faithful, who are what all in the fold should be. The false sheep, the goats, do not appear." Brentius remarks that we must not hastily assume, from our Lord's saying "the sheep did not hear them," that godly people will never be led away temporarily by false teachers. They may be deceived and seduced, but will return to the truth at last. v9.—[I am the door, etc.] This verse is one of those wide, broad, grand statements which our Lord sometimes makes, stretching far beyond the subject of which He is immediately speaking. It is like, "I am the Bread,— I am the Light,— I am the Way."— The primary meaning is, "I am He through whom and by whom alone true pastors must enter the Church. All such pastors, entering by Me, shall find themselves at home in the fold, and enjoy the confidence of my flock, and find food for the souls of my sheep, their hearers."— The secondary or fuller meaning is, "I am the Way of access to God. All who come to the Father by Me, whether pastors or hearers, shall find through Me safety and liberty, and possess continual food for their souls." Strictly speaking the sentence appears to belong specially to the true ministers of the flock of Christ. But I dare not confine it to them alone. It is a grand, wide promise to all who enter in. Melancthon sees in this verse a most excellent picture of a true pastor, in four respects. (1) He shall be saved personally. (2) He shall go in to close and intimate communion with God. (3) He shall go forth furnished with gifts, and be useful to the Church. (4) He shall find food and refreshment for his own soul. Musculus observes that our Lord does not say, "If any learned, or righteous, or noble, or rich, or Jewish man enters by Me," but, "any man,"— no matter who, great or small, however wicked in times past,— "any man" that enters by Me shall be saved. The expression, "go in and out," implies a habit of using familiarly a dwelling, and treating it as a home. It is a Hebraism. It expresses beautifully the habitual communion and happy intercourse with Christ which a true believer enjoys. (See Acts 1:21, Acts 9:28, John 14:23; and Revelation 3:20.) Augustine suggests that "go in" means entering by faith, and "going out," dying in faith, and the result of it having life in glory. He says, "We come in by believing: we go out by dying." But this seems far-fetched. Euthymius thinks that "going out" refers to the Apostles going out into the world to preach the Gospel. The "finding pasture" implies the satisfaction, comfort, and refreshment of soul which everyone who uses Christ as his Door into heaven shall experience. The latent thought is evidently Psalms 23:1-2, etc. Burgon remarks, "The concluding words describe the security and enjoyment which are the privilege of Gods people. To go in and out is to transact the business of each day's life: its rest and labor, the beginning and end of every work. The Hebrew phrase denotes a man's whole life and conversation. The promises connected therewith seem to imply that in their daily walk, it may be in the world's dusky lane and crowded mart, the people of God will find spiritual support and consolation, even meat for their souls which the world knows not of. Elsewhere the phrase is often, 'go out and come in.' Here, not without meaning, the expressions are transposed. The former is the order of nature, the latter the order of grace." In leaving this difficult passage, it is well to remember that though our Lord is not speaking of Himself as a Shepherd here, and is only giving a descriptive picture of a good shepherd, there is a latent application to Himself. There is no one to whom the various features of the picture apply so literally, clearly, and exactly, as they do to the great Shepherd of believers. "Every expression," says Burgon, "has a marked reference to Christ; yet it is plain that it is not of Himself that He is primarily speaking." Throughout the passage it is noteworthy how much stress is laid on the "voice" of the shepherd, and on hearing his voice. I cannot but regard this as intentional. It is the "voice in teaching" which makes the great difference between one earthly pastor and another. "The shepherd," says Burgon, "must not be silent while among his sheep." It is hearing the voice of the Chief Shepherd which is one great mark of all true believers." These verses show us, for one thing, the great object for which Christ came into the world. He says, I am come that men "might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." The truth contained in these words is of vast importance. They supply an antidote to many crude and unsound notions which are abroad in the world. Christ did not come to be only a teacher of new morality, or an example of holiness and self-denial, or a founder of new ceremonies, as some have vainly asserted. He left heaven, and dwelt for thirty-three years on earth for far higher ends than these. He came to procure eternal life for man, by the price of His own vicarious death. He came to be a mighty fountain of spiritual life for all mankind, to which sinners coming by faith might drink; and, drinking, might live for evermore. By Moses came laws, rules, ordinances, ceremonies. By Christ came grace, truth, and eternal life. Important as this doctrine is, it requires to be fenced with one word of caution. We must not overstrain the meaning of our Lord Jesus Christ's words. We must not suppose that eternal life was a thing entirely unknown until Christ came, or that the Old Testament saints were in utter darkness about the world to come. The way of life by faith in a Savior was a way well known to Abraham and Moses and David. A Redeemer and a Sacrifice was the hope of all God's children from Abel down to John the Baptist; but their vision of these things was necessarily imperfect. They saw them afar off, and not distinctly. They saw them in outline only, and not completely. It was the coming of Christ which made all things plain, and caused the shadows to pass away. Life and immortality were brought into full light by the Gospel. In short, to use our Lord's own words, even those who had life had it "more abundantly," when Christ came into the world. These verses show us, for another thing, one of the principal offices which Jesus Christ fills for true Christians. Twice over our Lord uses an expression which, to an Eastern hearer, would be singularly full of meaning. Twice over he says emphatically, "I am the Good Shepherd." It is a saying rich in consolation and instruction. Like a good shepherd, Christ knows all His believing people. Their names, their families, their dwelling-places, their circumstances, their private history, their experience, their trials,—with all these things Jesus is perfectly acquainted. There is not a thing about the least and lowest of them with which He is not familiar. The children of this world may not know Christians, and may count their lives folly: but the Good Shepherd knows them thoroughly, and, wonderful to say, though He knows them, does not despise them. Like a Good Shepherd, Christ cares tenderly for all His believing people. He provides for all their wants in the wilderness of this world, and leads them by the right way to a city of habitation. He bears patiently with their many weaknesses and infirmities, and does not cast them off because they are wayward, erring, sick, footsore, or lame. He guards and protects them against all their enemies, as Jacob did the flock of Laban; and of those that the Father has given Him He will be found at last to have lost none. Like a Good Shepherd, Christ lays down His life for the sheep. He did it once for all, when He was crucified for them. When He saw that nothing could deliver them from hell and the devil but His blood, He willingly made His soul an offering for their sins. The merit of that death He is now presenting before the Father's throne. The sheep are saved for evermore, because the Good Shepherd died for them. This is indeed a love that passes knowledge! "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13.) Let us only take heed that this office of Christ is not set before us in vain. It will profit us nothing at the last day that Jesus was a Shepherd, if during our lifetime, we never heard His voice and followed Him. If we love life, let us join His flock without delay. Except we do this, we shall be found at the left hand in the day of judgment, and lost for evermore. These verses show us, lastly, that when Christ died, He died of His own voluntary free will. He uses a remarkable expression to teach this: "I lay down my life that I might take it again. 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." The point before us is of no mean importance. We must never suppose for a moment that our Lord had no power to prevent His sufferings, and that He was delivered up to His enemies and crucified because He could not help it. Nothing could be further from the truth than such an idea. The treachery of Judas, the armed band of priests' servants, the enmity of Scribes and Pharisees, the injustice of Pontius Pilate, the rude hands of Roman soldiers, the scourge, the nails, and the spear,—all these could not have harmed a hair of our Lord's head, unless He had allowed them. Well might He say those remarkable words, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels? But how, then, shall the Scripture be fulfilled?" (Matthew 26:53-54.) The plain truth is, that our Lord submitted to death of His own free will, because He knew that His death was the only way of making atonement for man's sins. He poured out His soul unto death with all the desire of His heart, because He had determined to pay our debt to God, and redeem us from hell. For the joy set before Him He willingly endured the cross, and laid down His life, in order that we, through His death, might have eternal life. His death was not the death of a martyr, who sinks at last overwhelmed by enemies, but the death of a triumphant conqueror, who knows that even in dying he wins for himself and his people a kingdom and a crown of glory. Let us lean back our souls on these mighty truths, and be thankful. A willing Savior, a loving Savior, a Savior who came specially into the world to bring life to man, is just the Savior that we need. If we hear His voice, repent and believe, He is our own. ================== Notes— v10.—[The thief...destroy.] In this passage our Lord entirely drops the figure of "the door," and presents Himself under a new aspect, as "the Shepherd." And the first thing He does is to show the amazing difference between Himself and the false teachers who bore rule among the Jews. He had already told the Pharisees that they were no better than "thieves and robbers." He now contrasts their objects with His own. A thief does not come to the fold to do good to the flock, but harm; for his own selfish advantage, and for the injury of the sheep. Just so the Pharisees only became teachers of the Jewish Church for their own advantage and interest, and taught doctrine which was only calculated to ruin and destroy souls. A. Clarke observes, "How can worldly-minded hirelings, fox-hunting, card-playing priests, read these words without trembling to the center of their souls!" Bickersteth suggests, that "the thief in the singular number may remind us of the prince of darkness, the great chief robber and thief of souls." [I am come...life...abundantly.] Our Lord here puts in strong contrast with the false teachers of the Jews, His own purpose and object in coming into the world. He drops the figure of "the door," and says plainly and distinctly, stating it in the widest, broadest way, that as a personal Savior, He came that men might have life. The thief came to take life: He came to give it. He came that the way to eternal life might be laid open, the life of justification purchased by His blood, the life of sanctification provided by the grace of His Spirit. He came to buy this life by His sacrifice on the cross. He came to proclaim this life and offer it to a lost world. To bring life and hope to a lost, dead, perishing world, was the grand object of His incarnation. The ministry of the Pharisees was death, but that of Christ was life. The word "they" before "might have," must be taken generally here for "men." There is nothing else to which it can apply. But this was not all. Our Lord came that men who had life already "might have it more abundantly:" that is that they might see the way of life more clearly, and have no uncertainty about the way of justification before God; and that they might feel the possession of life more sensibly, and have more conscious enjoyment of pardon, peace, and acceptance. This seems to me by far the simplest view of the text. Of course there were millions in the world who before Christ came knew nothing of life for their souls: to them Christ's coming brought "life."—But there were also many believing Jews who had life already when Christ came, and were walking in the steps of Abraham: to them Christ's coming brought "life more abundantly." It enlarged their vision and increased their comfort. So Paul tells Titus that "Christ's appearing brought life and immortality to light." (2 Timothy 1:10.) Most commentators do not admit the comparative idea in "more abundantly," but interpret it as simply meaning the abundance of grace and mercy which Christ brings into the world: as Romans 5:20-21. This is true, but I venture to think it is not all the truth. Chemnitius, following Augustine, thinks that "more abundantly" may refer to the life of glory hereafter, which saints will have after the life of faith here. But I cannot see this. v11.—[I am the Good Shepherd.] Here our Lord declares that He Himself is the great Head Shepherd of God's people, of whom all ministers, even the best, are only faint imitators. It is as if He said, "I am towards all who believe in Me, what a good shepherd is to his sheep, careful, watchful, and loving." The article in the Greek is twice used to increase the emphasis: "I am the Shepherd, the good or excellent One." In the second verse of the chapter, before the word "Shepherd," in the Greek, we may remember, there is no article at all. (John 10:2.) It is probable that the name "shepherd," in Jewish ears, would convey, much more clearly than it does in ours, a claim to be regarded as the Messiah or Shepherd of souls. (See Genesis 49:24; Psalms 23:1-6; Ezekiel 34:1-31.) [The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.] Our Lord here shows the distinguishing mark of a good shepherd. Such an one will lay down his life for his sheep, to save, protect, and defend them. He will die rather than lose one. He will peril his life, like David attacking the lion and the bear, rather than let one be taken from him. "All this," our Lord implies, "I have come to do for my spiritual sheep. I have come to shed my life-blood to save their souls: to die that they may live." The word "giveth" here should have been translated "layeth down." It is so rendered in John 10:15. Flacius observes how our Lord here, as elsewhere, always brings round His discourse to His own atoning death. Hengstenberg observes, "This expression, 'laying down the soul or life' for anyone, does not occur anywhere else independently in the New Testament. It is never found in profane writers. It must be referred back to the Old Testament, and specially to Isaiah 53:10, where it is said of Messiah, 'He shall make, or place, His soul an offering for sin.' " Tittman says, "Those who maintain that Christ died only to confirm the truth of His doctrine, or to confirm the certainty of the promises of pardon and acceptance with God, are under a mistake. The death of Christ was not necessary for either of those purposes. The truth of His doctrine and the certainty of His promises must be established by other evidence. Neither does our Lord say, that He laid down His life for His doctrines, but for His sheep." v12, v13.—[But he that is an hireling, etc.] Our Lord in these two verses illustrates the subject He has taken up, by showing the wide difference between a mere hired shepherd, and one who feels a special interest in his sheep, because they are his own. A mere hired servant, who has not spent his money in buying the sheep, but only takes charge of a flock for pay, and cares little so long as he gets his money, such an one, as a general rule, will make no sacrifice and run no risk for the sheep. If he sees a wolf coming he will not meet him and fight, but will run away, and leave the flock to be scattered and devoured. He acts in this way because his whole heart is not in his work. He feeds the flock for money and not for love,— for what he can get by it, and not because he really cares for the sheep. Of course the picture must be taken as generally true: we cannot suppose our Lord meant that no paid servant was trustworthy. Jacob was a hired shepherd, yet trustworthy. But doubtless His Jewish hearers knew many such "hirelings" as He here describes. The picture of a faithless shepherd in Ezekiel 34:1-31 would also occur to those who were familiar with Old Testament Scripture. It is worth remembering that Paul specially warns the Ephesian elders, in Acts 20:29, that "grievous wolves" would enter in among them, not sparing the flock. Our Lord also in the Sermon on the Mount compares false prophets to "ravening wolves." (Matthew 7:15.) Musculus observes how great a misfortune it is to Christ's sheep when they are deserted by ministers, and left without regular means of grace. It has a scattering weakening effect. The best of ministers are poor weak creatures. But churches cannot keep together, as a rule, without pastors: the wolf scatters them. The ministry no doubt may be overvalued, but it may also be undervalued. We cannot doubt that the latent thought of our Lord's language here was as follows. The Pharisees and other false teachers were no better than hireling shepherds. They cared for nothing but themselves, and their own honor or profit. They cared nothing for souls. They were willing to have the name and profession of shepherds, but they had no heart in their work. They had neither will nor power to protect their hearers against any assault which that wolf, the devil, might make against them. Hence the Jews, when our Lord came on earth, were without help for their souls, fainting, and scattered like sheep without a shepherd, a prey to every device of the devil. Let it be noted that the great secret of a useful and Christlike ministry is to love men's souls. He that is a minister merely to get a living, or to have an honorable position, is "the hireling" of these verses. The true pastor's first care is for his sheep. The false pastor's first thought is for himself. Our Lord's strong language about the false teachers of the Jews ends here. Those who think that unsound ministers ought never to be exposed and held up to notice, and men ought never to be warned against them, would do well to study this passage. No class of character throughout our Lord's ministry seems to call forth such severe denunciation as that of false pastors. The reason is obvious. Other men ruin themselves alone: false pastors ruin their flocks as well as themselves. To flatter all ordained men, and say they never should be called unsound and dangerous guides, is the surest way to injure the Church and offend Christ. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and most commentators think that the "wolf" here means the devil, even as he is called elsewhere a roaring lion, a serpent, and a dragon. Lampe, on the other hand, thinks that the wolf signifies the same as the thief and robber, and that it must mean the false prophet, the wolf in sheep's clothing. (See Zephaniah 3:3; Matthew 7:15.) In interpreting this whole passage we must be careful not to strain it too far. Our Lord did not mean that in no case is flight from danger lawful in a pastor. He Himself says elsewhere, "When they persecute you in one city, flee ye to another." (Matthew 10:23.) So Paul left Damascus by stealth to escape the Jews. (Acts 9:25.) Calvin remarks, "Ought we to reckon that man a hireling who for any reasons whatever shrinks from encountering the wolves? This was anciently debated as a practical question, when tyrants raged cruelly against the Church. Tertullian and others were, in my opinion, too rigid on this point. I prefer greatly the moderation of Augustine, who allows pastors to flee on certain conditions." No unbending rule can be laid down. Each case must be decided by circumstances. There are times when, like Paul or Jewell, a man may see it a duty to flee, and await better days; and times when, like Hooper, he may feel called to decline flight and to die with his sheep. Barnabas and Paul were specially commended to the Church at Antioch (Acts 15:25), as those who had "hazarded their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus." Paul tells the Ephesian elders, "I count not my life dear unto myself so that I may finish my course with joy." (Acts 20:24.) Again he says, "I am ready to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 21:13.) v14.—[I am the Good Shepherd.] These words are repeated to show the importance of the office our Lord fills as the Good Shepherd, and to bring into stronger light the wide difference between Him and the Pharisees. [And know my sheep, and am known of mine.] These words express the close and intimate union there is between Christ and all His believing people, an union understood fully by those alone who feel it, but to the world foolishness. Our Lord, like a good earthly shepherd, knows every one of His people,— knows them with a special knowledge of love and approval; knows where they dwell and all about them, their weaknesses, trials, and temptations, and knows exactly what each one needs from day to day. His people, on the other hand, know Him with the knowledge of faith and confidence, and feel in Him a loving trust of which an unbeliever can form no idea. They know Him as their own sure Friend and Savior, and rest on the knowledge. The devils know that Christ is a Savior. The sheep know and feel that He is their Savior. The fullness of this verse would be far more plain to Jews accustomed to Oriental shepherds and their flocks, to the care of a good shepherd and the confidence of a flock, than it is to us in this Northern climate. At any rate it teaches indirectly the duty of every Christlike pastor to be personally acquainted with all his people, just as a good shepherd knows each one of his sheep. Musculus points out the strong contrast between "I know my sheep," and the solemn saying to the virgins, "I know you not," and to the false professors, "I never knew you," in Matthew 25:7; Matthew 7:23. Besser remarks that "I am known of mine" is a sharp rebuke to those doubters who in voluntary humility refuse to be sure of their salvation. v15.—[As the Father...me...I the Father.] I believe this sentence ought to be read in close connection with the last verse, and without any full stop between. There is nothing in the Greek against this view. The sense would then be, "I know my sheep and am known of mine, even as the Father knoweth Me and I know the Father." The meaning will then be that the mutual knowledge of Christ and His sheep is like the mutual knowledge of the Father and the Son,— a knowledge so high, so deep, so intimate, so ineffable, that no words can fully convey it. The full nature of that knowledge which the First Person of the Trinity has of the Second and the Second has of the First, is something far beyond finite man's understanding. It is in short a deep mystery. Yet the mutual knowledge and communion of Christ and believers is something so deep and wonderful that it can only be compared, though at a vast distance, to that which exists between the Father and the Son. To understand this knowledge a little, we should read carefully the language used in Proverbs 8:22-30. [And I lay down my life for the sheep.] Our Lord, to show how truly He is the Good Shepherd, declares that like a good shepherd He not only knows all His sheep, but lays down His life for them. By using the present tense, He seems to say, "I am doing it. I am just about to do it. I came into the world to do it." This can only refer to His own atoning death on the cross: the great propitiation He was about to make by shedding His life-blood. It was the highest proof of love. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13.) Taken alone and by itself this sentence undoubtedly contains the doctrine of particular redemption. It declares that Christ "lays down His life for the sheep." That He does so in a special sense I think none can deny. The "sheep" alone, or true believers, obtain any saving benefit from His death. But to argue from this text, that in no sense and in no way did Christ die for any beside His "sheep," is to say what seems to me to contradict Scripture. The plain truth is that the extent of redemption is not the leading subject of this verse. Our Lord is saying what He does for His sheep: He loves them so that He dies for them. But it does not follow that we are to conclude that His death was not meant to influence and affect the position of all mankind. I venture to refer the reader to my own notes, in this commentary, on John 1:29; John 3:16; and John 6:32, for a full discussion of the subject. Both here and in John 10:11, I do not think the Greek word translated "for" should be pressed too far, as if it necessarily implied the doctrine of substitution, or the vicariousness of Christ's death. That doctrine is a blessed and glorious truth, and is taught plainly and unmistakably elsewhere. Here, however, we are reading parabolic figurative language, and I doubt whether it is quite fair to explain it as meaning more than "on account of," or "in behalf of," the sheep. Of course it comes to the same thing at last: if the Shepherd did not die, the sheep would die. But I do not quite think "vicariousness," at any rate, is the primary idea of the sentence. I fully agree with Parkhurst, at the same time, that the Greek expression for "dying for anyone," in Romans 5:6-8, never has any signification other than that of "rescuing the life of another at the expense of our own." v16.—[And other sheep I have...fold.] In this sentence, our Lord declares plainly the approaching conversion of the Gentiles. The sheep He specially died for were not merely the few believing Jews, but the elect Gentiles also. They are the "other sheep:" "this fold" means the Jewish Church. It reads as though He would show the real measure and size of His flock. It was one much larger than the Jewish nation, of which the scribes and Pharisees were so proud. Let it be noted here that our Lord uses the present tense. The heathen sheep were as yet heathen, and not brought in; yet He says, "I have them." They were already given to Him in the eternal counsels, and foreknown from the beginning of the world. So it was with the Corinthians before their conversion: "I have much people in this city." (Acts 18:10.) Augustine remarks: "They were yet without, among the Gentiles, predestinated, not yet gathered in. These He knew who had predestinated them: He knew who had come to redeem them with the shedding of His own blood. He saw them who did not yet see Him: He knew them who yet believed not in Him." [Them also...bring.] Our Lord here declares that it is necessary for Him, in order to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, and to carry out the great purpose of His coming, to bring in and add to His flock other believers beside the Jewish sheep: "It is part of my work, office, and mission, to gather them out from the heathen by the preaching of my Apostles." The prediction here made was contrary to Jewish prejudices. The Jews thought they alone were God's flock and favored people. Even the Apostles afterwards were slow to remember these words. Hutcheson observes, "Christ Himself is chief in bringing in His elect, whatever instruments He employs; and He is at pains to seek them, and gain their consent, as being bound in the covenant of redemption to present all that are given Him blameless before the Father." Saints are "the called of Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:6.) [They shall hear my voice.] This is a prophecy and a promise combined. It was a prophecy that the elect among the heathen, however unlikely it might appear, would hear Christ's voice speaking to them in the Gospel preached; and hearing, would believe and obey.— It was a promise that would encourage His Apostles to preach to the heathen: "They will listen, and be converted, and follow Me."— It is a saying that was wonderfully forgotten by the Apostles afterwards. They were backward to bring in the other sheep, after their Master left the world.— It is a sentence that should nerve and cheer the missionary. Christ has said it: "The sheep who are scattered among the heathen will hear." The text, "He that heareth you heareth Me" (Luke 10:16), is the Divine explanation of the expression, "hear my voice." [And there shall be one fold...shepherd.] This sentence contains one word which ought to have been differently translated. It ought to be, as Tyndale renders it, "one flock and one shepherd." There is an evident difference. Christ's universal Church is a mighty company, of which the members may be found in many different visible churches, or ecclesiastical "folds:" but it composes only one "flock." There is only "one Holy Catholic Church," which is the blessed company of all faithful people; but there are many various visible churches. The sentence is true of all believers now. Though differing in various points, such as government or ceremonies, true believers are all sheep of one flock, and all look up to one Savior and Shepherd. It will be more completely fulfilled at Christ's second coming. Then shall be exhibited to the world one glorious Church under one glorious Head. In the view of this promise unity with all true Christians should be sought and striven for by every true sheep. Gualter remarks that there never has been, or can be, more than one Holy Catholic Church, and unless we belong to it we cannot be saved, and he warns us against the pernicious error that all men shall get to heaven if sincere, whether they belong to the Holy Catholic Church or not. Chemnitius observes that we must be careful not to make this one Church either too narrow or too broad. We make it too narrow when, like the Jews and the Papists, we exclude any believer who does not belong to our particular fold. We make it too broad when we include every professing Christian, whether he hears Christ's voice or not. It is a flock of "sheep." In every other place in the New Testament the word here wrongly translated "fold," is rendered "flock." (Matthew 26:31; Luke 2:8; 1 Corinthians 9:7.) The word "fold" before us, is evidently an oversight of our translators. v17.—[Therefore...my Father love me because, etc.] This is a deep and mysterious verse, like all verses which speak of the relation between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. We must be content to admire and believe what we cannot fully understand. When, as in John 5:20, and here, our Lord speaks of "the Father loving the Son," we must remember that He is using language borrowed from earthly affection, to express the mind of one Person of the Trinity towards another, and accordingly we must interpret it reverently.— Yet we may surely gather from this verse that our Lord's coming into this world to lay down His life for the sheep by dying on the cross, and to take it again for their justification by rising again from the dead, was a transaction viewed with infinite complacency and approbation by God the Father.— "I am about to die, and after death to rise again. My so doing, however strange it may seem to you Pharisees, is the very thing which my Father in heaven approves, and for which He specially loves Me." It is like the Father's words, "In whom I am well pleased;" and Paul's, "Wherefore God hath highly exalted Him" (Matthew 3:17; Philippians 2:9), and Isaiah's, "I will divide Him a portion with the great, because He hath poured out His soul unto death." (Isaiah 53:12.) Our Lord, by mentioning His resurrection, seems to remind His hearers that in one respect He was different from the best of shepherds. They might lay down their lives; but then there would be an end of them. He meant to lay down His life, but after that to take it again. He would not only die for His people, but also rise again. Guyse thinks the true meaning is, "I cheerfully lay down my life for the expiation of my sheep's offenses, in order that I may rise again for their justification." Let it be noted here, that there is no part of Christ's work for His people that God the Father is said to regard with such special complacency as His dying for them. No wonder that ministers ought to make Christ crucified the principal subject of their teaching. Gualter thinks these words were specially meant to prevent the offense of the ignominious death of Christ on the cross. That death, whatever the Jews might think, was part of Christ's plan and commission, and one reason why the Father loved Him. Brentius thinks that there is here a reference to the story of Abraham offering Isaac, when the words were used, "Because thou hast done this thing, and not withheld thy son, therefore blessing I will bless thee." (Genesis 22:16-18.) Hengstenberg remarks that the Father's love "was the very opposite of that wrath of God, of which the Jews regarded Christ's death as a proof and sign." They thought that God had forsaken Him, and given Him up to be crucified in displeasure, when in reality God was well pleased. v18.—[No man taketh...of myself.] In this sentence our Lord teaches that His own death was entirely voluntary. An earthly shepherd may die for his flock, but against his own will. The great Shepherd of believers made His soul an offering for sin of His own free will. He was not obliged or compelled to do it by superior force. No one could have taken away His life had He not been willing to lay it down: but He laid it down "of Himself," because He had covenanted to offer Himself as a propitiation for our sins. His own love to sinners, and not the power of the Jews or Pontius Pilate's soldiers, was the cause of His death. The word "I" is inserted emphatically in the Greek. "I myself" lay down my life "of myself." Henry observes, "Christ could, when He pleased, slip the knot of union between body and soul, and without any act of violence done to Himself, could disengage them from each other. Having voluntarily taken up a body, He could voluntarily lay it down again. This appeared when He cried with a loud voice and 'gave up' the ghost." [I have power...down...take it up.] Our Lord here amplifies His last statement, and magnifies His own Divine nature, by declaring that He has full power to lay down His life when He pleases, and to take it again when He pleases. This last point deserves special notice. Our Lord teaches that His resurrection, as well as His death, was in His own power. When our Lord rose again, He was not passive, and raised by the power of another only, but rose by His own Divine power. It is noteworthy that the resurrection of our Lord in some places is attributed to His Father's act, as Acts 2:24-32; once, at least, to the Holy Spirit, as 1 Peter 3:18; and here, and in John 2:19, to Christ Himself. All leads to the same great conclusion,— that the resurrection of our Lord, as well as every part of His mediatorial work, was an act in which all three Persons of the Trinity concurred and co-operated. Hutcheson observes that if Christ had power to take life again, when He pleased, "so He can put a period to the sufferings of His own when He pleaseth, without any help of their crooked ways." [This commandment...received...Father.] Chrysostom, and most other commentators, apply these words strictly to the great work which our Lord has just declared He had power to do: viz., to lay down His life and to take it again. "This is part of the commission I received from my Father on coming into the world, and one of the works He gave Me to do." No doubt this is good exposition and good divinity. Yet I am rather inclined to think that our Lord's words refer to the whole doctrine which He had just been declaring to the Jews: viz., His office as a Shepherd, His being the true Shepherd, His laying down His life for the sheep, and taking it again, His having other sheep who were to be brought into the fold, His final purpose to exhibit to the world one flock and one Shepherd. Of all this truth, He says, "I received this doctrine in charge from my Father, to proclaim to the world, and I now declare it to you Pharisees." I suspect that both here and elsewhere the word "commandment" has a wide, deep meaning, and points to that solemn and mysterious truth, the entire unity of the Father and the Son in the work of redemption, to which John frequently refers: "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works." (John 14:10.) "The Father gave Me a commandment what I should speak." (John 12:49.) Our Lord's object in these often repeated expressions seems to be to keep the Jews in mind that He was not a mere human Prophet, but one who was God as well as man, and in whom, both speaking and working, the Father always dwelt. When our Lord speaks of "receiving a commandment," we must take care that we do not suppose the expression implies any inferiority of the Second Person of the Trinity to the First. We must reverently remember the everlasting covenant between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the salvation of man, and interpret "commandment" as meaning a part of the charge or commission with which the Second Person, Christ, was sent into the world, to carry out the purposes of the Eternal Trinity. We should notice, first, in this passage, what strifes and controversies our Lord occasioned when He was on earth. We read that "there was a division among the Jews for His sayings,"—and that "many of them said He hath a devil, and is mad," while others took an opposite view. It may seem strange, at first sight, that He who came to preach peace between God and man, should be the cause of contention. But herein were His own words literally fulfilled: "I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34.) The fault was not in Christ or His doctrine, but in the carnal mind of His Jewish hearers. Let us never be surprised if we see the same thing in our own day. Human nature never changes. So long as the heart of man is without grace, so long we must expect to see it dislike the Gospel of Christ. Just as oil and water, acids and alkalies cannot combine, so in the same way unconverted people cannot really like the people of God.—"The carnal mind is enmity against God."—"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." (Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14.) The servant of Christ must think it no strange thing if he goes through the same experience as his Master. He will often find his ways and opinions in religion the cause of strife in his own family. He will have to endure ridicule, harsh words, and petty persecution, from the children of this world. He may even discover that he is thought a fool or a madman on account of his Christianity. Let none of these things move him. The thought that he is a partaker of the afflictions of Christ ought to steel him against every trial. "If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household." (Matthew 10:25.) One thing, at any rate, should never be forgotten. We must not allow ourselves to think the worse of religion because of the strifes and dissensions to which it gives rise. Whatever men may please to say, it is human nature, and not religion, which is to blame. We do not blame the glorious sun because its rays draw forth noxious vapors from the marsh. We must not find fault with the glorious Gospel if it stirs up men's corruptions, and causes the "thoughts of many hearts to be revealed." (Luke 2:35.) We should notice, secondly, the name which Christ gives to true Christians. He uses a figurative expression which, like all His language, is full of deep meaning. He calls them, "My sheep." The word "sheep," no doubt, points to something in the character and ways of true Christians. It would be easy to show that weakness, helplessness, harmlessness, usefulness, are all points of resemblance between the sheep and the believer. But the leading idea in our Lord's mind was the entire dependence of the sheep upon its Shepherd. Just as sheep hear the voice of their own shepherd, and follow him, so do believers follow Christ. By faith they listen to His call. By faith they submit themselves to His guidance. By faith they lean on Him, and commit their souls implicitly to His direction. The ways of a shepherd and his sheep, are a most useful illustration of the relation between Christ and the true Christian. The expression, "My sheep," points to the close connection that exists between Christ and believers. They are His by gift from the Father, His by purchase, His by calling and choice, and His by their own consent and heart-submission. In the highest sense they are Christ's property; and just as a man feels a special interest in that which he has bought at a great price and made his own, so does the Lord Jesus feel a peculiar interest in His people. Expressions like these should be carefully treasured up in the memories of true Christians. They will be found cheering and heart-strengthening in days of trial. The world may see no beauty in the ways of a godly man, and may often pour contempt on him. But he who knows that he is one of Christ's sheep has no cause to be ashamed. He has within him a "well of water springing up into everlasting life." (John 4:14.) We should notice, lastly, in this passage, the vast privileges which the Lord Jesus Christ bestows on true Christians. He uses words about them of singular richness and strength. "I know them.—I give unto them eternal life.—They shall never perish,—neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." This sentence is like the cluster of grapes which came from Eshcol. A stronger form of speech perhaps can hardly be found in the whole range of the Bible. Christ "knows" his people with a special knowledge of approbation, interest, and affection. By the world around them they are comparatively unknown, uncared for, or despised. But they are never forgotten or overlooked by Christ. Christ "gives" his people "eternal life." He bestows on them freely a right and title to heaven, pardoning their many sins, and clothing them with a perfect righteousness. Money, and health, and worldly prosperity He often wisely withholds from them. But He never fails to give them grace, peace, and glory. Christ declares that His people "shall never perish." Weak as they are, they shall all be saved. Not one of them shall be lost and cast away: not one of them shall miss heaven. If they err, they shall be brought back: if they fall, they shall be raised. The enemies of their souls may be strong and mighty, but their Savior is mightier; and none shall pluck them out of their Savior's hands. A promise like this deserves the closest attention. If words mean anything, it contains that great doctrine, the perseverance, or continuance in grace, of true believers. That doctrine is literally hated by worldly people. No doubt, like every other truth of Scripture, it is liable to be abused. But the words of Christ are too plain to be evaded. He has said it, and He will make it good: "My sheep shall never perish." Whatever men may please to say against this doctrine, it is one which God's children ought to hold fast, and defend with all their might. To all who feel within them the workings of the Holy Spirit, it is a doctrine full of encouragement and consolation. Once inside the ark, they shall never be cast out. Once converted and joined to Christ, they shall never be cut off from His mystical body. Hypocrites and false professors shall doubtless make shipwreck for ever, unless they repent. But true "sheep" shall never be confounded. Christ has said it, and Christ cannot lie: "they shall never perish." Would we get the benefit of this glorious promise? Let us take care that we belong to Christ's flock. Let us hear His voice and follow Him. The man who, under a real sense of sin, flees to Christ and trusts in Him, is one of those who shall never be plucked out of Christ's hand. ================== Notes— v19.—[There was a division, etc.] This is the third time that we find our Lord's words causing a division, or schism, among His hearers. Each time it occurred at Jerusalem. At John 7:43, it was among "the people;" at John 9:16, among the "Pharisees." Here it was among the "Jews," an expression in John's Gospel generally applied to our Lord's enemies among the Pharisees. The special "sayings" which caused the division were probably our Lord's words about His Father, His claim to have power to lay down His life and take it again, and His proclamation of Himself as "the Good Shepherd." Words like these from a Galilean teacher of humble appearance, were likely to offend the proud Pharisees of Jerusalem. That our Lord would be a cause of division,— a stone of stumbling to some, and set for the rise and fall of many in Israel,— had been foretold by Isaiah 8:14, and by Simeon, Luke 2:34. Divisions among His hearers are therefore no proof that He was not the Messiah, and divisions among hearers of the Gospel in the present day are no argument against the truth of the Gospel. Even now the same Gospel is a savor of death to some, and of life to others, calls forth love in some, and hatred in others. The same fire which melts wax, hardens clay. v20.—[And many of them said, etc.] This is the sort of profane remark which we can well imagine many unconverted hearers of our Lord making: "What! a humble Galilean like this man call Himself the only good Shepherd, and talk of having power to lay down His life and take it again, and of having a special commission from His Father in heaven. He must surely have a devil, or be out of his senses. He must be mad. Why do you waste your time in listening to Him?" Thousands talk in this way now against Christ's servants. They would probably have talked in the same way against their Master! Let us note what blasphemous and slanderous things were said against our Lord. True Christians, and specially ministers, must never wonder if they are treated in the same manner. v21.—[Others said, These are not, etc.] Here we see that there were some among the Pharisees who took our Lord's part, and were disposed to believe on Him. Such probably were Gamaliel, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimatæa. They defend Him on the score both of His words and works.— As to His words, they argue that no one of common sense could call such words as our Lord had just spoken, the words of a man possessed with a devil. The devil and his agents do not desire to do good to man, or to glorify God. The calm, solemn, loving, God-glorifying language just used, was the very opposite to that which might be expected from a demoniac.— As to His works, they argue that no devil, however powerful, could work such a miracle as to open the eyes of the blind. Some wonderful works the devil might do, but no such work as that of giving sight. It is worth noticing that the Jews held that to give sight to the blind was one of the special miracles which Messiah would work. "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened." (Isaiah 35:5.) The Greek word here rendered "words," is not the same as that rendered "sayings," in John 10:19. Webster says it is a stronger expression, and means "the whole transaction," as well as the things said. The word "blind" here in the Greek is plural, and would be more accurately translated, "of blind persons." v22.—[And it was at Jerusalem.] Many think that an interval of time comes in between this verse and the preceding one. I doubt it. From John 7:2, where we are told it was the feast of tabernacles, the narrative runs on at first sight continuously: yet if we look at John 9:35, there must have been one break of time.— If there was any interval before the verse we are now considering, I think it must have been very short. The following verses show that the discourse about "the sheep" must have been fresh in the minds of the Jews, as our Lord refers to it as a thing they could remember: He would hardly have done so if the interval had been very long. At any rate, I can see no proof that our Lord left Jerusalem between the discourse about "the sheep" and the verse before us. [The feast of the dedication.] This Jewish festival is one which is nowhere else mentioned in the Bible. It is however a matter of history, according to most commentators, that it was first appointed by Judas Maccabeus to commemorate the purging of the temple, and the rebuilding of the altar, after the Syrians were driven out. Its appointment is recorded in the Apocrypha, in 1Ma 4:52-59. The Apocryphal books are, no doubt, uninspired. But there is no reason to question the accuracy of their historical statements. The passage before us is often referred to, as proving that our Lord recognized, and tacitly sanctioned, a man-made and man-appointed festival. "The Church has power to decree rites and ceremonies," and so long as it ordains nothing against God's Word, its appointments deserve respect. At any rate our Lord did not denounce the feast of dedication, or refuse to be present at it. Chrysostom and others think that the Feast of Dedication was appointed to commemorate the rebuilding of the temple after the Babylonian captivity, in Ezra's time (Ezra 6:16.) Some think that it was to commemorate the dedication of Solomon's temple. (2 Chronicles 7:9.) There is, however, no warrant for this view. Pearce remarks, that John alone of all the evangelists records our Lord's attendance at four of the great feasts of the Jews: viz., passover (John 2:13), pentecost (John 5:1), tabernacles (John 7:2), and dedication, here. [It was winter.] This shows that three months had passed since the miracle of healing the blind man, which was worked at the feast of tabernacles. That was about Michaelmas, by our reckoning. The season of winter is here mentioned to explain why our Lord walked under cover, "in a porch." The mention of winter goes far to prove that the feast of dedication must have been appointed in commemoration of the work of Judas Maccabeus. Solomon's dedication was at Michaelmas, in the seventh month; Ezra's about Easter, in the first month. v23.—[And Jesus walked.] This must either mean that "it was the habit" of our Lord to walk, or else that "one day Jesus was walking:" the latter seems the more likely sense. [In the temple.] This means in the outer court, or area around the temple, which was a common place of resort for the Jews, and specially upon festivals. Here teachers expounded, and discussions on religious questions seem to have taken place. Here probably our Lord was found "among the doctors," hearing and asking questions, when he was twelve years old (Luke 2:46). [In Solomon's porch.] The word "porch" rather means what we should call a veranda, or colonnade. It was one of those long covered walks under a roof supported by columns, on one side at least, which the inhabitants of hot countries appear to find absolutely needful. Singularly enough, one sect of heathen philosophers at Athens was called "Stoics," from its meeting in a place called "Stoa," here rendered a porch; while another was called "Peripatetics," from its habit of "walking about" during its discussions, just as our Lord did in this verse. The cloisters of a cathedral or abbey, perhaps, are most like the building called a "porch" here. Josephus says this porch was one of the buildings which remained partly undestroyed from Solomon's temple. Tacitus expressly mentions it as one of the defenses of the temple at the siege of Jerusalem. v24.—[Then came...Jews round...said...him.] This would be more literally rendered, "encircled Him," or surrounded Him in a circle. [How long...make...doubt.] This would be more literally rendered, "Until what time dost Thou lift up our souls? How long dost Thou keep us in a state of suspense and excitement?" Elsner thinks it means, "How long dost Thou take away our life (as at John 10:18), or kill us with doubt and perplexity?" Suicer, Schleusner, and Parkhurst, however, prefer, "hold us in suspense." (See marginal reading in Luke 12:29). [If...Christ, tell us plainly.] The Jews had no right to say they had not sufficient evidence that our Lord was the Christ. But nothing is more common with hardened and wicked men than to allege a want of evidence, and to pretend willingness to believe, if only more evidence was supplied. "Plainly" here does not mean in plain language, and easily understood, but openly, boldly, unreservedly, and without mystery. v25.—[Jesus answered...I told...ye believed not.] To what does our Lord refer here? I believe He refers to what He had said in the fifth chapter before the Sanhedrim, and in the eighth chapter in the discourse beginning, "I am the Light," etc. The words would be more literally rendered, "I have told you, and ye do not believe." Henry observes, "The Jews pretended that they only doubted, but Christ tells them that they did not believe. Skepticism in religion is no better than downright infidelity." Hengstenberg thinks that "I have told you," specially refers to our Lord's recent proclamation of Himself as "the Good Shepherd." To a Jewish ear it would sound like a claim to be the Messiah. [The works...Father's name...witness of Me.] Here, as in other places, our Lord appeals to His miracles as the grand proof that He was the Christ. (Compare John 3:2, and John 5:36, and John 7:31, and John 9:33-34, and Acts 2:22.) It is as though our Lord said, "The miracles I have done are more than sufficient proof that I am the Messiah. Nothing can account for them but the fact that I am the promised Messiah." We should observe how our Lord says, "The works which I do in my Father's name;" that is, by my Father's commission and appointment, and as His Messenger. Here, as elsewhere, He carefully reminds the Jews that He does not act independently of His Father, but in entire harmony and unity with Him. His works were works which "the Father gave Him to finish." We should observe how our Lord always and confidently appeals to the evidence of His miracles. Those who try to depreciate and sneer at miracles, seem to forget how often they are brought forward as good witnesses in the Bible. This, in fact, is their great object and purpose. They were not so much meant to convert, as to prove that He who did them was from God, and deserved attention. "Of Me," would be more literally rendered, "concerning" or "about Me." v26.—[But ye believe not, because...not...sheep.] I doubt whether the word "because" does not put a meaning on this verse which it hardly bears in the Greek. It should rather be, "Ye neither believe my words nor my works, FOR ye are not in the number of my sheep. If ye were my sheep ye would believe: faith is one of their marks." Not being Christ's sheep was not the CAUSE of the unbelief of the Jews; but their unbelief was the that they were not Christ's sheep. Tyndale and others think that the full stop should be after the word "sheep," and that "as I said unto you," should be taken with the following verse; but I see no necessity for this. [As I said to you.] I think these words refer to two sayings of our Lord, which He had used in speaking to the Jews, one in John 8:47— "He that is of God heareth God's words: Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God;" and the other is at the third and fourth verses of this chapter: "The sheep hear His voice;"— "the sheep follow Him, for they know His voice." (John 10:3-4.) v27.—[My sheep hear my voice, etc.] Having told the Pharisees that they were not His sheep, our Lord goes on to describe the character of those who were His sheep; that is, of His own true people and servants. This He does in a verse of singular richness and fullness. Every word is instructive. Christ calls His people "sheep." He does so because they are in themselves singularly helpless and dependent on their Shepherd; because comparatively they are the most harmless and helpless of animals; because even at their best they are weak, foolish, and liable to go astray. Chemnitius gives thirteen distinct reasons why believers are called sheep. They are too long to quote here, but will repay the examination of anyone who has access to his commentary. He calls them, "My sheep." They are His by God the Father's gift,— His by redemption and purchase,— His by calling and choosing,— His by feeding, keeping, and preserving,— and His by their own consent and will. They are His peculiar property. He says, "They hear my voice." By this He means that they listen to His invitation, when He calls them to repent, believe, and come to Him. This supposes that Christ first speaks, and then they hear. Grace begins the work:— they, through grace, obey His calling, and willingly do as He bids them. The ears of unconverted people are deaf to Christ's call, but true Christians hear and obey. He says, "I know them." This means that He knows them with a special knowledge of approbation, complacency, love, and interest. (See the word "know" in Psalms 1:6, Psalms 31:7, Amos 3:2.) Of course He knows the secrets of all men's hearts, and all about all wicked people. But He knows with a peculiar knowledge those who are His people. The world knows them not, but Christ knows and cares for them (1 John 3:1). He says, "They follow Me." This means that His people, like sheep, obey, trust, and walk in the steps of their Divine Master. They follow Him in holy obedience to His commandments; they follow Him in striving to copy His example; and they follow Him in trusting implicitly His providential leadings,— going where He would have them go, and taking cheerfully all He appoints for them. It is almost needless to remark that this description belongs to none but true Christians. It did not belong to the Pharisees to whom our Lord spoke. It does not belong to multitudes of baptized people in our own day. Luther says: "The sheep, though the most simple creature, is superior to all animals in this, that he soon hears his shepherd's voice, and will follow no other. Also he is clever enough to hang entirely on his shepherd, and to seek help from him alone. He cannot help himself, nor find pasture for himself, nor heal himself, nor guard against wolves, but depends wholly and solely on the help of another." In the Greek of this verse, there is a nice distinction between the number of the verb "hear" and the verb "follow," which the English language cannot convey. It is as though our Lord had said, my sheep are a body, which "hears" my voice, in the singular; and of which the individual members "follow" Me, in the plural. v28.—[And I give, etc.] From the character of Christ's sheep the Good Shepherd goes on to describe their privileges. He gives to them eternal life; the precious gift of pardon and grace in this world; and a life of glory in the world to come.—He says, "I give," in the present tense. Eternal life is the present possession of every believer.—He declares that they shall never perish or be lost, unto all eternity; and that no one shall ever pluck them out of His hand. We have here the divinity and dignity of our Lord Jesus Christ. None but one who was very God could say, "I give eternal life." No Apostle ever said so. We have here the perpetuity of grace in believers, and the certainty that they shall never be cast away. How anyone can deny this doctrine, as the Arminians do, and say that a true believer may fall away and be lost, in the face of this text, it is hard to understand. It is my own deliberate opinion that it would be almost impossible to imagine words in which a saint's "perseverance" could be more strongly asserted. We have here a distinct promise, that "no one," man, angel, devil, or spirit, shall be able to tear from Christ His sheep. The Greek literally is not "any man," but "any person," or "any one." The doctrine plainly taught in this text may be called "Calvinism" by some, and "of dangerous tendency" by others. The only question we ought to ask is, whether it is scriptural. The simplest answer to that question is, that the words of the text, in their plain and obvious meaning, cannot be honestly interpreted in any other way. To thrust in, as some enemies of perseverance do, the qualifying clause, "They shall never perish so long as they continue my sheep," is adding to Scripture, and taking unwarrantable liberties with Christ's words. So, again, Whitby's interpretation, "They shall never perish through any defect on my part," though they may fall away by their own fault, is a sad instance of unfair handling of Scripture. Let it only be remembered that the character of those who shall never perish is most distinctly and carefully laid down in this place. It is those who hear Christ's voice and follow Him, who alone are "sheep:" it is "His sheep," and His sheep alone, who shall never perish. The man who boasts that he shall never be cast away, and never perish, while he is living in sin, is a miserable self-deceiver. It is the perseverance of saints, and not of sinners and wicked people, that is promised here. Doubtless the doctrine of the text may be misused and abused, like every other good thing. But to the humble penitent believer, who puts his trust in Christ, it is one of the most glorious and comfortable truths of the Gospel. Those who dislike it would do well to study the 17th Article of the Church of England, and Hooker's sermon on the "Perpetuity of Faith in the Elect." Let it be noted that the last clause of the text plainly implies that many will try to pluck away Christians from Christ, and draw them back to sin. To feel that something is always "plucking" and "pulling" at us must never surprise believers. There is a devil, and saints will always feel and find his presence. Let it be noted that, to be safe in Christ's hand, and so never to perish, is one thing; but to feel that we are safe is quite another. Many true believers are safe, who do not realize and feel it. Musculus observes that our Lord does not say in this verse that His sheep shall lose nothing in this world. They may lose property, liberty, and life, for Christ's sake. But their souls cannot be lost. He also observes that all Christ's sheep are in Christ's hand. His hand holding them, and not their hand holding Him, is the true secret of their safety and perseverance. The importance of the doctrine contained in this text cannot, in my judgment, be overrated. The Christian who does not hold it is a great loser. It is one of the grand elements of the good news of the Gospel. It is a safeguard against much unsound doctrine. Perseverance can never be reconciled with baptismal regeneration. The advocates of an extravagant view of baptismal grace, it may be observed, always have a special dislike to the doctrine of this text. Hengstenberg wisely remarks, "It is cold consolation to say, if so long as they remain my sheep they are secure, and shall never perish. The whole strength of our soul's desire is for a guarantee against ourselves. That there is such a guarantee is here assured to us." v29.—[My Father who gave, etc., etc.] Our Lord here strengthens the mighty promise just made, by declaring that His sheep are not His only, but His Father's: His Father gave them to Him. "My Father," He declares, is 'almighty,' or greater than all; the possessor of all power. No one is able to pluck anything out of my Father's hand, so that my sheep's safety is doubly secured." Let it be noted that the word "them," in the last clause of our English version, is not in the Greek. It is probable that both in this verse and the preceding one, there is a latent reference to the case of the man whom the Pharisees had lately "cast out" of the Church, or excommunicated. Our Lord seems to say, "You may cut off and tear away from your outward Church-membership whom you will; but you can never pluck away any of my people from Me." Let it be noted here that the Father is just as much interested in the safety of believers as the Son. To leave out of sight the Father's love, in our zeal for the glory of Christ, is very poor theology. Melancthon dwells on this promise in a passage of singular beauty. He specially dwells on it as a ground of comfort against the invasion of Europe by the Turks, the persecution of truth by so-called Christian princes, and the furious strifes and controversies of teachers of the Church. There is a Church which nothing can harm. Calvin remarks, "Our salvation is certain, because it is in the hand of God. Our faith is weak, and we are prone to waver: but God, who has taken us under His protection is sufficiently powerful to scatter with a breath all the power of our adversaries. It is of great importance to turn our eyes to this." Musculus observes that it is said the Father "gave" the sheep to Me, in the past tense. Believers were given to Christ before the foundation of the world. v30.—[I and the Father are one.] In order to explain how it is that the Father should take as much interest in the sheep as the Son, our Lord here declares in the plainest and most explicit terms, the deep truth of the essential unity between Himself and His Father. Literally translated, the sentence is, "I and my Father are one thing." By this, of course, He did not mean that His Father and He were one Person. This would overthrow the doctrine of the Trinity. But He did mean, "I and my eternal Father, though two distinct Persons, and not to be confounded, are yet one in essence, nature, dignity, power, will, and operation. Hence, in the matter of securing the safety of my sheep, what I do, my Father does likewise. I do not act independently of Him." This is one of those deep and mysterious texts which we must be content to receive and believe, without attempting to pry too curiously into its contents. The cautious and exact words of the Athanasian Creed should be often remembered: "Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. There is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost: but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal." Augustine remarks that this text alone overthrows both the doctrine of the Sabellians and the Arians. It silences the Sabellians, who say there is only one Person in the Godhead, by speaking of two distinct Persons. It silences the Arians, who say the Son is inferior to the Father, by saying that Father and Son are "one." Let it be noted that the doctrine of this verse is precisely the same that our Lord had maintained on a former occasion (in the fifth chapter) before the Sanhedrim. There it was expounded fully: here it is briefly asserted. And the interpretation put on His meaning, in both cases, by the Jews, was exactly the same. They regarded it as a claim to be regarded as "God." The practical use of the text to a believer in Christ is far too much overlooked. It shows the entire childlike confidence with which such a one may look at the Father. "He who hath the Son hath the Father." The remark is only too true that while some ignorantly talk of the Father, as if there was no Christ crucified, others with no less ignorance talk of Christ crucified as if there was no God and Father of Christ, who loved the world! Chrysostom observes, "That thou mayest not suppose that Christ is weak, and the sheep are in safety through the Father's power, He addeth, 'I and the Father are one.' As though He had said, 'I did not assert that on account of the Father no man plucketh them away, as though I were too weak to keep the sheep. For I and the Father are one.' He speaks here with reference to power, for concerning this was all His discourse; and if the power be the same, it is clear that the essence is also." Ecolampadius remarks, "He does not say we are one in the masculine gender,— that is, one person; but one in the neuter gender,— that is one in nature, power, and majesty. If you were to say one Person, you would take away both, and leave neither Father nor Son." Maldonatus quotes a saying of Augustine's, "that it is invariably found in Scripture that things called 'one' are things of the same nature." It is fair to admit that Erasmus, Calvin, and a few others, think the "oneness" here only means unity of consent and will. But the vast majority of commentators think otherwise, and the Jews evidently thought so also. We should observe, in these verses, the extreme wickedness of human nature. The unbelieving Jews at Jerusalem were neither moved by our Lord's miracles nor by His preaching. They were determined not to receive Him as their Messiah. Once more it is written that "they took up stones to stone Him." Our Lord had done the Jews no injury. He was no robber, murderer, or rebel against the law of the land. He was one whose whole life was love, and who "went about doing good." (Acts 10:38.) There was no fault or inconsistency in His character. There was no crime that could be laid to His charge. So perfect and spotless a Being had never walked on the face of this earth. But yet the Jews hated Him, and thirsted for His blood. How true are the words of Scripture: "They hated Him without a cause." (John 15:25. Psalms 35:19; Psalms 69:4.) How just the remark of an old divine: "Unconverted men would kill God Himself if they could only get at Him." The true Christian has surely no right to wonder if he meets with the same kind of treatment as our blessed Lord. In fact, the more like he is to his Master, and the more holy and spiritual his life, the more probable is it that he will have to endure hatred and persecution. Let him not suppose that any degree of consistency will deliver him from this cross. It is not his faults, but his graces, which call forth the enmity of men. The world hates to see anything of God's image. The children of the world are vexed and pricked in conscience when they see others better than themselves. Why did Cain hate his brother Abel, and slay him? "Because," says John, "his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous." (1 John 3:12.) Why did the Jews hate Christ? Because He exposed their sins and false doctrines; and they knew in their own hearts that he was right and they were wrong. "The world," said our Lord, "hateth Me, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." (John 7:7.) Let Christians make up their minds to drink the same cup, and let them drink it patiently and without surprise. There is One in heaven who said, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you." (John 15:18.) Let them remember this and take courage. The time is short. We are traveling on towards a day when all shall be set right, and every man shall receive according to his works. "There is an end: and our expectation shall not be cut off." (Proverbs 23:18.) We should observe, secondly, in these verses, the high honor that Jesus Christ puts on the Holy Scriptures. We find Him using a text out of the Psalms as an argument against His enemies, in which the whole point lies in the single word "gods." And then having quoted the text, He lays down the great principle, "the Scripture cannot be broken." It is as though He said, "Wherever the Scripture speaks plainly on any subject, there can be no more question about it. The case is settled and decided. Every jot and tittle of Scripture is true, and must be received as conclusive." The principle here laid down by our Lord is one of vast importance. Let us grasp it firmly, and never let it go. Let us maintain boldly the complete inspiration of every word of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Let us believe that not only every book of the Bible, but every chapter,—and not only every chapter, but every verse,—and not only every verse, but every word, was originally given by inspiration of God. Inspiration, we must never shrink from asserting, extends not only to the thoughts and ideas of Scripture, but to the least words. The principle before us, no doubt, is rudely assaulted in the present day. Let no Christian's heart fail because of these assaults. Let us stand our ground manfully, and defend the principle of plenary inspiration as we would the apple of our eye. There are difficulties in Scripture, we need not shrink from conceding; things hard to explain, hard to reconcile, and hard to understand. But in almost all these difficulties, the fault, we may justly suspect, is not so much in Scripture as in our own weak minds. In all cases we may well be content to wait for more light, and to believe that all shall be made clear at last. One thing we may rest assured is very certain,—if the difficulties of plenary inspiration are to be numbered by thousands, the difficulties of any other view of inspiration are to be numbered by tens of thousands. The wisest course is to walk in the old path,—the path of faith and humility; and say, "I cannot give up a single word of my Bible. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The Scripture cannot be broken." We should observe, lastly, in these verses, the importance which our Lord Jesus Christ attaches to His miracles. He appeals to them as the best evidence of His own Divine mission. He bids the Jews look at them, and deny them if they can. "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you believe not Me, believe the works." The mighty miracles which our Lord performed during the three years of His earthly ministry, are probably not considered as much as they ought to be in the present day. These miracles were not few in number. Forty times and more we read in the Gospels of His doing things entirely out of the ordinary course of nature,—healing sick people in a moment, raising the dead with a word, casting out devils, calming winds and waves in an instant, walking on the water as on solid ground. These miracles were not all done in private among friends. Many of them were wrought in the most public manner, under the eyes of unfriendly witnesses. We are so familiar with these things that we are apt to forget the mighty lesson they teach. They teach that He who worked these miracles must be nothing less than very God. They stamp His doctrines and precepts with the mark of Divine authority. He only who created all things at the beginning, could suspend the laws of creation at His will. He who could suspend the laws of creation, must be One who ought to be thoroughly believed and implicitly obeyed. To reject One who confirmed His mission by such mighty works, is the height of madness and folly. Hundreds of unbelieving men, no doubt, in every age, have tried to pour contempt on Christ's miracles, and to deny that they were ever worked at all. But they labor in vain. Proofs upon proofs exist that our Lord's ministry was accompanied by miracles; and that this was acknowledged by those who lived in our Lord's time. Objectors of this sort would do well to take up the one single miracle of our Lord's resurrection from the dead, and disprove it if they can. If they cannot disprove that, they ought, as honest men, to confess that miracles are possible. And then, if their hearts are truly humble, they ought to admit that He whose mission was confirmed by such evidence must have been the Son of God. Let us thank God, as we turn from this passage, that Christianity has such abundant evidence that it is a religion from God. Whether we appeal to the internal evidence of the Bible, or to the lives of the first Christians, or to prophecy, or to miracles, or to history, we get one and the same answer.—All say with one voice, "Jesus is the Son of God, and believers have life through His name." ================== Notes— v31.—[The the Jews took up stones, etc.] The conduct of the Jews is just the same as it was when our Lord said, "Before Abraham was I am." (John 8:58-59.) They regarded His words as blasphemy, and proceeded to take the law into their own hands, as they did in Stephen's case, and to inflict the punishment due to blasphemy. (See Leviticus 24:14-16.) "He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." (So Numbers 15:36; 1 Kings 21:13.) The Jews of course had no power to put any man to death, being under the dominion of the Romans, and if they did stone anyone it would have been a sudden tumultuary proceeding, or act of what is called in America Lynch-law. Let it be noted that the Greek word for "took up" here, is not the same that is used at John 8:59. Here it rather means "they carried." Parkhurst thinks this implies the great size of the stones they brought. No doubt the stones used in stoning to death, were not pebbles, but large stones. Yet I rather incline to think that it shows that they had to carry stones from some little distance for their murderous purpose. We can hardly suppose there were suitable stones lying about within an old finished building like Solomon's porch, though there might be stones at a little distance on account of the repairs of the temple. Augustine remarks, "Behold the Jews understood what Arians do not understand." Maldonatus observes that "these stones cry out against the Arians." v32.—[Jesus...many good works...shewed...Father, etc.] Our Lord here appeals to the many miracles He had publicly wrought before the Jews, in discharging His commission as sent by the Father to be the Messiah, all good and excellent works, in which none could find any fault, and He asks whether they proposed to stone Him for any of them. They had often asked for signs and proofs of His being the Messiah. Well, He had wrought many such signs. Did they really mean to kill Him for His works? He had gone about only doing good. Did they intend to stone Him for this? The expression "I have shewed" is curious, and we should have expected rather "I have worked." It probably means, "I have publicly exhibited before your eyes, and not in a corner, but in such a manner as to court the fullest public observation, many wonderful proofs of my Messiahship." (Compare John 2:18—"What sign shewest Thou?") So Paul says that "God shall in His own time shew the appearing of Jesus Christ." (1 Timothy 6:15.) The expression is probably a Hebraism. (Compare Psalms 4:6; Psalms 60:3; Psalms 71:20; Exodus 7:9.) The expression "from my Father" points to the great truth continually brought forward by our Lord in this Gospel: viz., that all His works as well as words were given to Him by the Father, to be worked and spoken in the world, and ought therefore to be held in special reverence. Hengstenberg observes, that the expression "many good works," evidently supposes that John knew of many other miracles, which he does not record, and that many had been done at Jerusalem beside the few that are recorded. [For which...works...stone Me?] This could be literally rendered, "On account of which work of all these are you stoning Me?" Some, as Gualter and Tholuck, have thought that there is a slight tinge of sarcasm about the question. "Is it so that you are actually going to stone Me for good actions? Are not men generally stoned for evil doings?" Yet this seems an unlikely idea, and is needless. Is not the meaning made clear by simply inverting the order of words? "For what work or action are you going to stone Me? Justice requires that criminals should be punished for doing evil works: but all the many wonderful works I have done among you have been good and not evil. You surely will not stone Me for any of these: reason and your laws teach that this would be wrong. It is not therefore for my works and life that you are going to stone Me. I challenge you to prove that I have done evil. Which of you convicteth Me of sin?" Taken in this view, the verse is simply a strong assertion made by our Lord, of His own entire innocence of any crime for which He could be stoned. Hutcheson thinks that "some stones were already cast at Christ, and therefore He says, Do you stone Me?" Yet this seems needless. The present tense here implies only, "Are ye on the point of stoning Me?" v33.—[The Jews answered, etc.] Our Lord's confident challenge, as in John 8:46, seems to have been found unanswerable by the Jews. They could not prove any evil work against Him. They therefore reply that they do not propose to stone Him for His works, but for having spoken blasphemous words. The precise nature of the blasphemy they say, is that "being nothing but a mere man, He made Himself God, or spoke of Himself in such a way as showed that He claimed to be God." This is a very remarkable verse. It is like John 5:18—"The Jews sought to kill Him, because He said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." It shows clearly that the Jews in our Lord's time attached a much higher and deeper sense to our Lord's frequently used language about God being His Father than modern readers are apt to do. In fact, they regarded it as nothing less than a claim to equality with God.—Modern Arians and Socinians, who profess to see nothing in our Lord's Sonship but a higher degree of that relationship which exists between all believers and God, would do well to mark this verse. What they say they cannot see, the Jews who hated Christ could see. This "cotemporaneous exposition," to use a legal phrase, of our Lord's words, deserves great respect, and carries with it great weight and authority. As a man, our Lord was a Jew, educated and trained among Jews. Common sense points out that the Jews who lived in His times were more likely to put a correct sense on His words than modern Socinians. Gualter observes how frequently wicked men and persecutors of Christ's people have affected a zeal for God's glory, and pretended a horror of blasphemy. The accusers of Naboth and Stephen are examples: so also the Spanish Inquisition. A. Clarke observes, "that had the Jews, as many called Christians do, understood our Lord only to mean, by being 'one with the Father,' that He had unity of sentiment with the Father, they would not have attempted to treat Him as a blasphemer. In this sense Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and all the prophets were one with God. But what irritated them was that they understood him to speak of unity of nature. Therefore they say, 'Thou makest Thyself God.' " v34.—[Jesus answered them, etc.] Our Lord's defense of His own language against the charge of blasphemy is very remarkable. It is an argument from a lesser to a greater. If princes, who are merely men, are called gods, He who was the eternal Son of the Father could surely not be justly chargeable with blasphemy for calling Himself the "Son of God." The expression "your law," means the Scriptures. Sometimes our Lord speaks of two great divisions into which the Jews divided the Old Testament: viz., the law and the prophets. (As Matthew 22:40.) The "law" then included not the books of Moses only, but everything down to the end of the Song of Solomon. Sometimes He distributes the Scriptures into three parts: the law, the psalms, and the prophets. (As in Luke 24:44.) Here He uses one word for all the Old Testament, and calls it "the law." By saying "your law," our Lord reminds His hearers that He appeals to their own honored sacred writings. The expression, "I said ye are gods," is drawn from the 82nd Psalm, in which Asaph is speaking of princes and rulers, and their position and duties. Their elevation above other men was so great, and their consequent responsibility for the state of nations so great, that compared to other men, it might be said, "You are as gods." A King is called "the LORD's anointed." (2 Samuel 1:14.) So "Ye judge not for man, but for the LORD." (2 Chronicles 19:6.) Princes and magistrates are ordained of God, derive their power from God, act for God, and stand between the people and God. Hence, in a sense, they are called "gods." Those who wish to see this subject fully worked out, will see it in Hall and Swinnock's Exposition of the 82nd Psalm. We should observe how our Lord appeals to Scripture as the judge of controversy: "Is it not written?" A plain text ought to settle every disputed point. He might have argued: He simply quotes a text. By so doing He puts peculiar honor on Scripture. It is worth noticing that the Hebrew word rendered "judges" in our version of Exo 22:8-9 might have been rendered "gods." (Compare Exodus 22:28; Exodus 21:6.) v35.—[If he called them gods.] Here our Lord proceeds to show what was the edge and point of His argument. All turned on the use of the single word "gods" in one single verse of a Psalm. It is not very clear what governs the word we render "called" in this sentence. Our translators evidently thought it meant "God." But why should it not refer direct to "your law" in the last verse? "If your own book of the law in a Psalm has called certain persons gods." Chrysostom observes, "What He saith is of this kind: 'If those who have received this honor by grace, are not found fault with for calling themselves gods, how can He deserve to be rebuked who has this by nature?' " Theophylact says the same. [To whom the Word of God came.] This is a rather difficult expression. Some, as Bullinger and Burgon, think that it refers to the commission from God which rulers receive: "they are persons to whom God has spoken, and commanded them to rule for Him." Some, as Alford, think it simply means "if He called them gods, to whom God spake in these passages." But it may justly be replied that it does not say "God spake;" but, "There was the Word of God."— Of the two views the former seems best. The Greek is almost the same as that of Luk 3:2— "The word of God came to John,"— meaning a special commission. Heinsius suggests that the sentence means "against whom the word of God was" spoken in the 82nd Psalm: that Psalm containing a rebuke of princes. But this seems doubtful. Pearce thinks that it means "with whom was the word of judgment?" and refers to the Septuagint version of 2 Chronicles 19:6. It deserves notice that it is never said of Christ Himself, that the "Word of God came to Him." He was above all other commissioned judges. [And the Scripture cannot be broken.] In this remarkable parenthesis our Lord reminds His Jewish hearers of their own acknowledged principle, that the "Scripture cannot be annulled or broken:" that is, that everything which it says must be received reverently and unhesitatingly, and that not one jot or tittle of it ought to be disregarded. Every word of Scripture must be allowed its full weight, and must neither be clipped, passed over, nor evaded. If the 82nd Psalm calls princes who are mere men "gods," there cannot be any impropriety in applying the expression to persons commissioned by God. The expression may seem strange at first. Never mind, it is in the Scripture, and it must be right. Few passages appear to me to prove so incontrovertibly, the plenary inspiration and divine authority of every word in the original text of the Bible. The whole point of our Lord's argument hinges on the divine authority of a single word. Was that word in the Psalms? Then it justified the application of the expression "gods" to men. Scripture cannot be broken. The theories of those who say that the writers of the Bible were inspired, but not all their writings,— or the ideas of the Bible were inspired, but not all the language in which these ideas are conveyed,— appear to be totally irreconcilable with our Lord's use of the sentence before us. There is no other standing ground I believe, about inspiration, excepting the principle that it is plenary, and reaches to every syllable. Once leaving that ground, we are plunged in a sea of uncertainties. Like the carefully composed language of wills, settlements, and conveyances, every word of the Bible must be held sacred, and not a single flaw or slip of the pen admitted. Let it be noted that the literal meaning of the word rendered "broken," is "loosed" or "untied." Gill observes, "This is a Jewish way of speaking, much used in the Talmud. When one doctor has produced an argument, another says, 'It may be broken,' or objected to, or refuted. But the Scripture cannot be broken." Hengstenberg says, "It cannot be doubted that the Scripture is broken by those who assert that the Psalms breathe a spirit of revenge, that Solomon's song is a common Oriental love song, that there are in the Prophets predictions never to be fulfilled,— or by those who deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch." v36.—[Say ye of Him, etc.] Our Lord in this verse presses home on the Jews the force of the expression in the 82nd Psalm. "If princes are called gods, do you mean to call Me, whom the Father sanctified from eternity to be Messiah, and sent into the world in due time, a blasphemer, because I have said I am the Son of God?" "Say ye of Him" would have been better rendered, "Say ye of Me." The Greek leaves it open. The expression "whom the Father hath sanctified," must mean, "whom the Father hath set apart, and appointed from all eternity in the covenant of grace, as a priest is sanctified and set apart for the service of the temple." It cannot mean literally "made holy." It implies eternal dedication and appointment to a certain office. This is one of the places which teach the eternal generation of Christ. Long before He came into the world, "the Father" (not God, observe) had sanctified and appointed the Son. He did not become the Son when He entered the world: He was the Son from all eternity. The expression, "sent into the world," means that mission of Christ's to be the Savior, which took place when He became incarnate, and came among us in the form of a man. He was the Father's "sent One," the "Apostle" of our profession. (See Hebrews 3:1. John 3:17, and 1 John 4:14.) He that was so "sanctified" and "sent," might well speak of Himself as the Son of God, and equal with God. Calvin remarks, "There is a sanctification that is common to all believers. But here Christ claims for Himself something far more excellent: namely, that He alone was separated from all others, that the grace of the Spirit and majesty of God might be displayed in Him; as He said formerly, "Him hath God the Father sealed." (John 6:27.) v37.—[If I do not the works, etc.] Here our Lord once more appeals to the evidence of His miracles, and challenges attention to them. "I do not ask you to believe that I am the Son of God and the Messiah, if I do not prove it by my works. If I did no miracles, you might be justified in not believing Me to be the Messiah, and in calling Me a blasphemer." Here, again, we should observe how our Lord calls His miracles the "works of His Father." They were works given to Him by His Father to do. They were such works as none but God the Father could possibly perform. Gualter observes, what a proof this verse indirectly supplies of the nullity of the Pope's claim to be God's vice-gerent and head of the Church. What are his works? What evidence of a divine mission does he give? Musculus also remarks that the Pope's high claims and great sounding titles are useless, so long as his works contradict his words. v38.—[But if I do, though, etc.] Our Lord here concludes His reply to the Jews: "If I do the works of my Father, then, though ye may not be convinced by what I say, be convinced by what I do. Though ye resist the evidence of my words, yield to the evidence of my works. In this way learn to know and believe that I and my Father are indeed one, He in Me and I in Him, and that in claiming to be His Son, I speak no blasphemy." We should note here, as elsewhere, our Lord's strong and repeated appeals to the evidence of His miracles. He sent to John the Baptist, and desired him to mark His works, if he would know whether He was "the coming One."—"Go and tell John what ye have seen and heard, the blind receive their sight," etc. Just so He argues here. (Matthew 11:4.) Let us note the close and intimate union that exists between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity: "The Father is in Me, and I in Him." Such language can never be reconciled with the views of Socinians. "By these words," says Bloomfield, "our Lord meant communion of mind and equality of power. It is plain that the Jews clearly understood that He claimed and ascribed to Himself the attributes of Godhead, and made Himself equal with the Father." Chrysostom remarks, that our Lord seems to say, "I am nothing different from what the Father is, so however as that I remain Son; and the Father is nothing different from what I am, so however as that He remains Father. He that knows Me has known the Father, and learned the Son." v39.—[Therefore...sought...take Him.] Here we see the utter insensibility of our Lord's hardened enemies to any argument or appeal to their reason. In spite of what He had now said, they showed a determination to go on with their wicked designs, and tried again to lay violent hands on Him. Nothing seems to harden the heart and take away the reasoning faculty, so completely as obstinate resistance to plain evidence. [But He escaped...hand.] This would be literally rendered, "And He came forth out of their hand," as in Luke 4:30; and at John 8:59. The escape seems to have been effected by miracle. A restraint was put on the hands of His enemies, and their eyes were temporarily blinded. v40.—[And went...again...Jordan...John...baptized.] I know not to what the expression "again" can refer here, except to the time when our Lord began His ministry by coming to be baptized by John at Bethabara, beyond Jordan. (see John 1:28.) I do not find that He had been there again during the three years of His ministry. There is something touching and instructive in the choice of this place. Where our Lord began His ministry, there He resolved to end it. It would remind His Jewish hearers that John the Baptist had repeatedly proclaimed Him as "the Lamb of God," and they could not deny John's divine mission. It would remind His own disciples of the first lessons which they learned under their Master's teaching, and recall old things to their minds. It is good to revisit old scenes sometimes. The flesh needs many helps to memory. Henry makes the quaint remark, "The Bishop of our souls came not to be fixed in one See, but to go about from place to place doing good." [And there He abode.] Our Lord must evidently have remained here between three and four months,—from the feast of dedication to the last passover, when he was crucified; that is from winter to Easter. Where precisely, and with whom He stayed, we do not know. It must have been a solemn and quiet season to Himself and His disciples. Musculus observes that this verse teaches us that it is lawful to regard localities in which great spiritual works have been done with more than ordinary reverence and affection. v41.—[And many resorted, etc.] Our Lord's choice of an abode seems to have had an excellent effect. It was not so far from Jerusalem but that "many" could come to hear Him, as they did to hear John the Baptist. There, on the very spot where John, now no longer living, used to preach to enormous crowds, and baptize, they could not help being reminded of John's repeated testimony to Christ. And the consequence was, that they said, "John, whom we believe to have been a prophet, certainly did no miracles, but everything that he said of this Jesus as the coming One, whose shoes he was not worthy to wear [bear], was true. We believed John to be a prophet sent of God. Much more ought this man to be believed." Let us observe that John's preaching was not forgotten after his death, though it seemed to produce little effect during his life. Herod could cut short his ministry, put him in prison, and have him beheaded; but he could not prevent his words being remembered. Sermons never die. The Word of God is not bound. (2 Timothy 2:9.) We never read of any miracle or mighty work being performed by John. He was only "a voice." Like all other ministers, he had one great work,—to preach, and prepare the way for Christ. To do this is more lasting work than to perform miracles, though it does not make so much outward show. Besser remarks, "John is a type of every servant of Christ. The gift of working miracles, imparted but to few, we can do without, if only one hearer testify of us, 'All things that they spake of Christ are true.' If only our preaching, though it may last longer than three years, is sealed as the true witness of Christ, through the experience of those who believe and are saved, then we shall have done miracles enough." v42.—[And many believed...there.] Whether this was head belief, the faith of intellectual conviction,—or heart belief, the faith of reception of Christ as a Savior,—we are left in doubt. We have the same expression in John 8:30 and John 11:45. Yet we need not doubt that very many Jews, both here and elsewhere, were secretly convinced of our Lord's Messiahship, and after His resurrection came forward and confessed their faith, and were baptized. It seems highly probable that this accounts for the great number converted at once on the day of Pentecost and at other times. (See Acts 4:4; Acts 6:7; and Acts 21:20.) The way had been prepared in their hearts long before, by our Lord's own preaching, though at the time they had not courage to avow it. The good that is done by preaching is not always seen immediately. Our Lord sowed, and His Apostles reaped, all over Palestine. Chrysostom has a long and curious comment on this verse. He draws from it the great advantage of privacy and quiet to the soul, and the benefit that women especially derive from living a retired life at home, compared to men. His exhortation to wives to use their advantages in this respect, and to help their husbands' souls, is very singular, when we consider the times in which he wrote, and the state of society at Constantinople. "Nothing," he says, "is more powerful than a pious and sensible woman, to bring a man into proper order, and to mold his soul as she will." Henry observes, "Where the preaching of repentance has had success, there the preaching of reconciliation and Gospel grace is most likely to be prosperous. Where John has been acceptable, Jesus will not be unacceptable. The jubilee trumpet sounds sweetest in the ears of those who in the day of atonement have afflicted their souls for sin." The chapter we have now begun is one of the most remarkable in the New Testament. For grandeur and simplicity, for pathos and solemnity, nothing was ever written like it. It describes a miracle which is not recorded in the other Gospels,—the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Nowhere shall we find such convincing proofs of our Lord's Divine power. As God, He makes the grave itself yield up its tenants.—Nowhere shall we find such striking illustrations of our Lord's ability to sympathize with His people. As man, He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities.—Such a miracle well became the end of such a ministry. It was meet and right that the victory of Bethany should closely precede the crucifixion at Calvary. These verses teach us that true Christians may be sick and ill as well as others. We read that Lazarus of Bethany was one "whom Jesus loved," and a brother of two well-known holy women. Yet Lazarus was sick, even unto death! The Lord Jesus, who had power over all diseases, could no doubt have prevented this illness, if He had thought fit. But He did not do so. He allowed Lazarus to be sick, and in pain, and weary, and to languish, and suffer, like any other man. The lesson is one which ought to be deeply graven in our memories. Living in a world full of disease and death, we are sure to need it some day. Sickness, in the very nature of things, can never be anything but trying to flesh and blood. Our bodies and souls are strangely linked together, and that which vexes and weakens the body can hardly fail to vex the mind and soul. But sickness, we must always remember, is no sign that God is displeased with us: nay, more, it is generally sent for the good of our souls. It tends to draw our affections away from this world, and to direct them to things above. It sends us to our Bibles, and teaches us to pray better. It helps to prove our faith and patience, and shows us the real value of our hope in Christ. It reminds us betimes that we are not to live always, and tunes and trains our hearts for our great change. Then let us be patient and cheerful when we are laid aside by illness. Let us believe that the Lord Jesus loves us when we are sick no less than when we are well. These verses teach us, secondly, that Jesus Christ is the Christian's best Friend in the time of need. We read that when Lazarus was sick, his sisters at once sent to Jesus, and laid the matter before Him. Beautiful, touching, and simple was the message they sent. They did not ask Him to come at once, or to work a miracle, and command the disease to depart. They only said, "Lord, he whom Thou lovest is sick," and left the matter there, in the full belief that He would do what was best. Here was the true faith and humility of saints! Here was gracious submission of will! The servants of Christ, in every age and climate, will do well to follow this excellent example. No doubt when those whom we love are sick, we are to use diligently every reasonable means for their recovery. We must spare no pains to obtain the best medical advice. We must assist nature in every possible manner to fight a good fight against its enemy. But in all our doing, we must never forget that the best and ablest and wisest Helper is in heaven, at God's right hand. Like afflicted Job, our first action must be to fall on our knees and worship. Like Hezekiah, we must spread our matters before the Lord. Like the holy sisters at Bethany, we must send up a prayer to Christ. Let us not forget, in the hurry and excitement of our feelings, that none can help like Him, and that He is merciful, loving, and gracious. These verses teach us, thirdly, that Christ loves all who are true Christians. We read that "Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus." The characters of these three good people seem to have been somewhat different. Of Martha, we are told in a certain place, that she was "careful and troubled about many things," while Mary "sat at Jesus' feet, and heard His word." Of Lazarus, we are told nothing distinctive at all. Yet all these were loved by the Lord Jesus. They all belonged to His family, and He loved them all. We must carefully bear this in mind in forming our estimate of Christians. We must never forget that there are varieties in character, and that the grace of God does not cast all believers into one and the same mold. Admitting fully that the foundations of Christian character are always the same, and that all God's children repent, believe, are holy, prayerful, and Scripture-loving, we must make allowances for wide varieties in their temperaments and habits of mind. We must not undervalue others because they are not exactly like ourselves. The flowers in a garden may differ widely, and yet the gardener feels interest in all. The children of a family may be curiously unlike one another, and yet the parents care for all. It is even so with the Church of Christ. There are degrees of grace, and varieties of grace; but the least, the weakest, the feeblest disciples, are all loved by the Lord Jesus. Then let no believer's heart fail because of his infirmities; and, above all, let no believer dare to despise and undervalue a brother. These verses teach us, lastly, that Christ knows best at what time to do anything for His people. We read that "when He had heard that Lazarus was sick, He abode two days still in the same place where He was." In fact, He purposely delayed His journey, and did not come to Bethany till Lazarus had been four days in the grave. No doubt He knew well what was going on: but He never moved till the time came which He saw was best. For the sake of the Church and the world, for the good of friends and enemies, He kept away. The children of God must constantly school their minds to learn the great lesson now before us. Nothing so helps us to bear patiently the trials of life as an abiding conviction of the perfect wisdom by which everything around us is managed. Let us try to believe not only that all that happens to us is well done, but that it is done in the best manner, by the right instrument, and at the right time. We are all naturally impatient in the day of trial. We are apt to say, like Moses, when beloved ones are sick, "Heal her now, O God, we beseech Thee." (Numbers 12:13.) We forget that Christ is too wise a Physician to make any mistakes. It is the duty of faith to say, "My times are in Thy hand. Do with me as Thou wilt, how Thou wilt, what Thou wilt, and when Thou wilt. Not my will, but Thine be done." The highest degree of faith is to be able to wait, sit still, and not complain. Let us turn from the passage with a settled determination to trust Christ entirely with all the concerns of this world, both public and private. Let us believe that He by whom all things were made at first is He who is managing all with perfect wisdom. The affairs of kingdoms, families, and private individuals, are all alike overruled by Him. He chooses all the portions of His people. When we are sick, it is because He knows it to be for our good: when He delays coming to help us, it is for some wise reason. The hand that was nailed to the cross is too wise and loving to smite without a needs-be, or to keep us waiting for relief without a cause. ================== Notes— The raising of Lazarus, described in this chapter, is one of the most wonderful events recorded in the Gospels, and demands more than ordinary attention. In no part of our Lord's history do we see Him so distinctly both man and God at the same time: man in sympathy, and God in power. Like each of the few incidents in our Lord's ministry related by John, it is placed before us with peculiar minuteness and particularity. The story is singularly rich in delicate, tender, and beautiful expressions. Before entering upon it, I venture to offer the following preliminary remarks. (a) The raising of Lazarus was manifestly intended to supply the Jews with one more incontrovertible proof that Jesus was the Christ of God, the promised Messiah. In the tenth chapter, at the Feast of Dedication, our Lord had been asked, "If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." (John 10:24.) In reply He had distinctly appealed to His "works," as the best evidence of His Messiahship. He had deliberately challenged attention to those works as witnesses to His commission. And now, after a short interval, we find Him for the last time, within two miles of Jerusalem, before many eyewitnesses, doing such a stupendous work of Divine power that a man might have thought any skeptic would have been silenced forever. After the raising of Lazarus, the Jews of Jerusalem, at any rate, could never say that they were left destitute of proofs of Christ's Messiahship. (b) The raising of Lazarus was meant to prepare the minds of the Jews for our Lord's own resurrection. It took place between Christmas and Easter, and probably within two months of His own crucifixion. It proved incontrovertibly that a person dead four days could be raised again by Divine power, and that the restoration to life of a corpse was not an impossibility with God. I think it impossible not to see in this a latent design to prepare the minds of the Jews for our Lord's own resurrection. At any rate it paved the way for men believing the event to be not incredible. No one could say on Easter Sunday, when the grave of Jesus was found empty, and the body of Jesus was gone, that His resurrection was an impossibility. The mere fact that between winter and Easter in that very year a man dead four days had been restored to life within two miles of Jerusalem, would silence such remarks. Though improbable, it could not be called impossible. (c) The raising of Lazarus is of all our Lord's miracles the one which is most thoroughly credible, and supported by most incontrovertible evidence. The man who disbelieves it may as well say plainly that he does not believe anything in the New Testament, and does not allow that a miracle is possible. Of course there is no standing-ground between denying the possibility of miracles, and denying the existence of a creating God. If God made the world, He can surely change the course of nature at any time, if He thinks fit. The famous skeptic, Spinosa, declared that if he could be persuaded of the truth of the miracle before us, he would forsake his own system, and embrace Christianity. Yet it is extremely difficult to see what evidence of a fact a man can desire if he is not satisfied with the evidence that Lazarus really was raised from the dead. But, unhappily, none are so blind as those who will not see. The following passage from Tittman, the German Commentator, is so sensible that I make no apology for giving it at length, though somewhat condensed. "The whole story," he says, "is of a nature calculated to exclude all suspicion of imposture, and to confirm the truth of the miracle. A well-known person of Bethany, named Lazarus, falls sick in the absence of Jesus. His sisters send a message to Jesus, announcing it; but while He is yet absent Lazarus dies, is buried, and kept in the tomb for four days, during which Jesus is still absent. Martha, Mary, and all his friends are convinced of his death. Our Lord, while yet remaining in the place where He had been staying, tells His disciples in plain terms that He means to go to Bethany, to raise Lazarus from the dead, that the glory of God may be illustrated, and their faith confirmed. At our Lord's approach, Martha goes to meet Him, and announces her brother's death, laments the absence of Jesus before the event took place, and yet expresses a faint hope that by some means Jesus might yet render help. Our Lord declares that her brother shall be raised again and assures her that He has the power of granting life to the dead. Mary approaches, accompanied by weeping friends from Jerusalem. Our Lord Himself is moved, and weeps, and goes to the sepulchre, attended by a crowd. The stone is removed. The stench of the corpse is perceived. Our Lord, after pouring forth audible prayer to His Father, calls forth Lazarus from the grave, in the hearing of all. The dead man obeys the call, comes forth to public view in the same dress that he was buried in, alive and well, and returns home without assistance. All persons present agree that Lazarus is raised to life, and that a great miracle has been worked, though not all believe the person who worked it to be the Messiah. Some go away and tell the rulers at Jerusalem what Jesus has done. Even these do not doubt the truth of the fact; on the contrary, they confess that our Lord by His works is becoming every day more famous, and that He would probably be soon received as Messiah by the whole nation. And therefore the rulers at once take counsel how they may put to death both Jesus and Lazarus. The people, in the mean time hearing of this prodigious transaction, flock in multitudes to Bethany, partly to see Jesus, and partly to view Lazarus. And the consequence is that by and by, when our Lord comes to Jerusalem, the population goes forth in crowds to meet Him and show Him honor, and chiefly because of His work at Bethany. Now if all these circumstances do not establish the truth of the miracle, there is no truth in history." I only add the remark, that when we consider the place, the time, the circumstances, and the singular publicity of the raising of Lazarus, it really seems to require more credulity to deny it than to believe it. It is the unbeliever, and not the believer of this miracle, who seems to me the credulous man. The difficulties of disbelieving it are far greater than those of believing it. (d) The raising of Lazarus is not mentioned by Matthew, Mark, or Luke. This has stumbled many persons. Yet the omission of the story is not hard to explain. Some have said that Matthew, Mark, and Luke purposely confine themselves to miracles done in Galilee.— Some have said that when they wrote their Gospels Lazarus was yet alive, and the mention of his name would have endangered his safety.— Some have said that it was thought better for the soul of Lazarus not to draw attention to him and surround him with an unhealthy celebrity till after he had left the world.— In each and all of these reasons there is some weight. But the best and simplest explanation probably is, that each Evangelist was inspired to record what God saw to be best and most suitable. No one, I suppose, imagines that the Evangelists record a tenth part of our Lord's miracles, or that there were not other dead persons raised to life, of whom we know nothing at all. "The dead are raised up," was our Lord's own message, at an early period of His ministry, to John the Baptist. (Matthew 11:5.) "If the works that Jesus did should be written every one," says John, "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25.) Let it suffice us to believe that each Evangelist was inspired to record exactly those events which were most likely to be profitable for the Church in studying his Gospel. Our Lord's ministry and sayings at Jerusalem were specially assigned to John. What wonder then that he was appointed to record the mighty miracle which took place within two miles of Jerusalem, and proved incontrovertibly the guilt of the Jerusalem Jews in not receiving Jesus as the Messiah? Bucer remarks, that there is a continually ascending greatness and splendor in those miracles which John was inspired to record in his Gospel, and that the raising of Lazarus was the most illustrious of all. He also observes that our Lord specially chose the great feasts at Jerusalem as occasions of working miracles. Chemnitius remarks, "There is not in the whole Evangelical narrative a more delightful history, and one more abundant both in doctrine and consolation, than this of the raising of Lazarus. It therefore ought to be studied most closely and minutely by all pious minds. v1.—[Now a certain man...sick...Lazarus.] These simple words are the keynote to the whole chapter. All turns on the bodily illness of an obscure disciple of Christ. How much in the history of our lives hinges on little events, and specially on illnesses! Sickness is a sacred thing, and one of God's great ordinances. This illness took place between winter and Easter, during the time that our Lord was at Bethabara, beyond Jordan. The nature of the disease we are not told; but from its rapid course, it is not unlikely it was a fever, such as is common even now in Palestine. This is the first time that Lazarus is mentioned in the New Testament, and we know nothing certain of his history. Some have conjectured that he was the young ruler who came to our Lord, asking what he must do to obtain eternal life, and went away sorrowful at the time, but was afterwards converted.— Some have conjectured that he is the young man who followed our Lord when he was taken prisoner, mentioned by Mark, and fled away naked.— But these are mere guesses, and there is really no solid foundation for them. That he was not a poor man, but comparatively rich, seems highly probable from the "feast" in John 12:1-50, the number of friends who came to mourn him, the alabaster box of precious ointment used by his sister, and the sepulchre hewn out of rock. But even this is only a conjecture. The name "Lazarus" no doubt is a Greek form of the Hebrew name "Eleazar." It is worth noticing, that it survives to this day in the modern name of Bethany: "El-Azarizeh." (See Smith's Biblical Dictionary.) [Of Bethany...town...Mary...Martha.] The word "town" in this sentence would have been better translated "village," as it is in sixteen other texts in the New Testament. Bethany, in truth, was only a small village, a short two miles from Jerusalem, on the east side; and its situation is perfectly known now. It lies on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, on the road to Jericho. It is not once mentioned in the Old Testament, and owes its fame to its being the place where Lazarus was raised,— the place where our Lord rested at night just before the passion,— the place from which He commenced His triumphant entry into Jerusalem,— the place from which He finally ascended into heaven (Luke 24:50-51), and the dwelling-place of Mary and Martha. Let it be noted that the presence of God's elect children is the one thing which makes towns and countries famous in God's sight. The village of Martha and Mary is noticed, while Memphis and Thebes are not named in the New Testament. A cottage where there is grace, is more pleasant in God's sight than a cathedral town where there is none. Let it be noted that this verse supplies internal evidence that John's Gospel was written long after the other historical parts of the New Testament. He speaks of Martha and Mary as persons whose names and history would be familiar to all Christian readers. There is a peculiarity in the Greek of this verse, which is hardly conveyed in our English translation. Literally it would be rendered, "Lazarus from Bethany, out of the town of Mary," etc. That "from" Bethany means exactly what we render it, is clear from Acts 17:13; Hebrews 13:24. But why "out of the village," or "town of Mary," is said, is not quite so clear. It is open to the conjecture that it may mean "Lazarus was now a man of Bethany, but was originally out of the town of Mary and Martha:" viz., some other place. But this seems unlikely.— Webster suggests that "out of" is added by way of emphasis, to show that Lazarus not only lived there, but that it was also the place of his nativity. Greswell says much the same. It is noteworthy that John 1:44 contains exactly the same form of expression about Philip and Bethsaida. It is noteworthy that Mary is named before Martha, though Martha was evidently the older sister, and head of the house. The reason, I suppose, is that Mary's name and character were better known of the two. Chemnitius thinks it possible that all Bethany belonged to Martha and Mary, and that this accounts for the consideration in which they were held, and the number of mourners, etc. It is worth remembering that Bethany was a very small place. Yet Bethsaida was called the "town of Andrew and Peter" (John 1:44), and clearly did not belong to two poor fishermen. v2.—[It was that Mary, etc.] This verse is a parenthetical explanation inserted by John after his manner, to make it certain what Mary he refers to, as the sister of Lazarus. Christians knew there were in our Lord's time, no less than four Marys: (1) The mother of our Lord, (2) the wife of Cleophas, (3) Mary Magdalene, (4) Mary the sister of Martha. To prevent, therefore, any mistake, John says, "It was that Mary who anointed our Lord, whose brother Lazarus was sick." Simple as these words seem, there is a singular diversity of opinion as to the question who Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus was, and how many times our Lord was anointed. (a) Some, as Chrysostom, Origen, and Chemnitius, maintain that the anointing took place three times: once, in Luke 7:37-38, at the house of Simon the Pharisee; once in Bethany, at the house of Simon the leper, (Mark 14:3); and once in Bethany, at the house of Martha and Mary (John 12:1-3.) Others, as Ferus, while agreeing with Chrysostom that our Lord was anointed three times, think Mary was the woman who twice did it. (b) Some maintain that our Lord was anointed twice: once at the Pharisee's house (in Luke 7:1-50), and once at Bethany, at the house of Simon the leper, where Martha and Mary and Lazarus lived, for some cause which we do not know. (c) Some, as Augustine, Bede, Toletus, Lightfoot, Maldonatus, Cornelius à Lapide, and Hengstenberg, maintain that our Lord was only once anointed,— that the narrative in Luke 7:1-50 was inserted out of chronological order,— that Simon the Pharisee and Simon the leper were the same person, and that the one anointing took place at Bethany. Hengstenberg supports his theory very ingeniously, and boldly suggests that Simon the Pharisee was also called Simon the leper, was the husband of Martha, and not friendly to Christ; that this accounts for Martha being more "careful and troubled" (in Luke 10:41) than Mary, and for unfriendly Pharisees being present at the raising of Lazarus; that Mary Magdalene was the same as Mary of Bethany,— and that Mary of Bethany was the "sinner," in Luke 7:1-50. Toletus frankly admits that the Romish Church holds that there was only one anointing by one person, as it is plainly declared in one of her formularies: viz., the Breviary. My own opinion is decidedly against the last of these views. I hold that there were at least two anointings; one at a comparatively early period of our Lord's ministry, and another at the close of it,— one in the house of an unfriendly Pharisee named Simon, and another at the house of Simon the leper, in Bethany,— one by a woman who had been pre-eminently a sinner, another by Mary the sister of Martha, against whose moral character we know nothing.— Why the house of Martha and Mary at Bethany is called the house of Simon the leper, I admit I cannot explain. I can only surmise that there was some relationship of which we know nothing. But this difficulty is nothing in my eyes, compared to that of supposing, with Augustine and his followers, that the event described in Luke 7:1-50, took place just at the end of our Lord's ministry. There is strong internal evidence that it did not, to my mind. Surely at the end of our Lord's ministry, people would not have said with wonder, "Who is this that forgiveth sins?" Surely Mary would not be spoken of as a notorious "sinner." On the other hand, if we hold the view that our Lord was only anointed twice,— once at the house of Simon the Pharisee, and once at Bethany,— it must be frankly admitted that there is a very grave difficulty to be got over. That difficulty is that Mark says that a woman anointed our Lord "two days" before the Passover, and poured the ointment on His "head," while John says He was anointed "six days before the passover," and the ointment poured on His "feet."— I do not see how this difficulty can be got over. If however we hold that our Lord was anointed twice in the last week before He was crucified, once "six days" before, and once "two days" before, and on each occasion by a woman, the whole thing is clear. That such a thing should be done more than once, in those days, does not strike me as any objection, considering the customs of the age. That our Lord's language in defense of the woman should on each occasion be the same is somewhat remarkable. But it is only a minor difficulty. On the whole therefore, if I must give an opinion, I incline to agree with Chrysostom, that there were three anointings. I also think there is something in the view of Ferus, that Mary, sister of Lazarus, anointed our Lord twice,— once six days before the passover, and once again two days before. The use of the past participle in the verse before us, seems to me no difficulty at all. It is of course true that at this time Mary had not anointed our Lord. But it is no less true that John evidently mentions it by anticipation, as a historical fact long past and well known in the Church when he wrote his Gospel, which his readers would understand. "It was that Mary which afterwards anointed Christ's feet." Let us note in this verse, that the good deeds of all Christ's saints are carefully recorded in God's book of remembrance. Men are forgetful and ungrateful. Nothing done for Christ is ever forgotten. Let us note that sickness comes to Christ's people as well as to the wicked and worldly. Grace does not exempt us from trial. Sickness, on the contrary, is one of God's most useful instruments for sanctifying His saints, and making them bear fruit of patience, and for showing the world that His people do not serve Him merely for what they get of bodily ease and comfort in this life. "Job does not serve God for naught," was the devil's sneer, in the days when Job prospered. "Lazarus and his sisters make a good thing of their religion,"— might have been said if they had had no trials. Brentius remarks, "God does not go away when bodily health goes away. Christ does not depart when life departs." v3.—[Therefore his sisters sent...saying.] This is an example of what all Christians should do in trouble. Like Mary and Martha, we should first send a message to Christ. By prayer we can do it as really as they did. This is what Job did in his trouble: he first of all "worshiped," and said, "Blessed be the name of the LORD." This is what Asa did not do: "He sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians." (Job 1:20; 2 Chronicles 16:12.) Let it be noted that the Greek would be more literally rendered "the sisters," and not "his." This message, from the expression in the next verse, "heard," would seem to have been a verbal and not a written one. [Lord...he whom thou lovest is sick.] This is a very touching and beautiful little message.— Its humble and respectful confidence is noteworthy: "He whom Thou loveest is sick." They do not say, "Do something," or "Heal him," or "Come at once." They simply spread the case before the Lord, and leave Him to do what He thinks wisest and best. It is like Hezekiah spreading Sennacherib's letter before God. (2 Kings 19:14.)— The name given to Lazarus is noteworthy: they do not say "our brother," or "Thy disciple," or even "one who loves Thee," but simply "he whom Thou lovest;" one whom Thou hast been pleased to treat graciously and kindly as a beloved friend. Christ's love to us, and not our love to Christ is the blessed truth which we ought continually to keep before our minds. His love never changes: ours is wavering and uncertain. The idea of some, that sending a message to Christ was a mark of weak faith in the two sisters, as if it showed doubt of Christ's omniscience, is absurd. At this rate we might never pray, and might say there is no need, because God knows all! The word "behold" seems either to indicate something "sudden" in the illness of Lazarus, like Mark 2:21 [<--appears to be an incorrect reference] and to be used adverbially; or else we must take it as an imperative verb. "Behold a case of great affliction: look upon it and see. He whom Thou lovest is sick." This would be like Hezekiah's prayer: "Open Thine eyes and see." (2 Kings 19:16.) We can hardly suppose that such disciples as Martha and Mary would think it a strange or surprising thing that a disciple of Christ should be ill; yet it is possible they did. However, Theophylact and Ferus suppose that "Behold" implies a degree of wonder and surprise. Rupertus remarks, on the message containing no request: "To a loving friend it was quite enough to announce the fact that Lazarus was sick." Affectionate friends are not verbose or lengthy in descriptions. Brentius remarks, that the message is like all true prayer: it does not consist in much speaking, and fine long sentences. Musculus and Chemnitius both remark, that when a man's child falls into a well or pit, it is enough to tell a loving father the simple fact, in the shortest manner possible, without dwelling on it verbosely and rhetorically. Rollock observes how useful it is to have praying sisters. Let us note that Christ's friends may be sick and ill, just like other people. It is no proof that they are not beloved, and specially preserved and cared for by God. "Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth." The purest gold is most in the fire; the most useful tools are oftenest ground. Epaphroditus and Timothy were both of weak health, and Paul could not prevent it. v4.—[When Jesus heard that, He said.] This verse seems to contain the reply which our Lord gave to the messenger. It was to him probably, though in the hearing of all His disciples, that He addressed the words which follow. It is as though He said, "Go, return to thy mistress, and say as follows." [This sickness is not unto death, etc.] The meaning of this sentence must evidently be taken with qualification. Our Lord did not mean that Lazarus would not in any sense die. It is as though He said, "The end of this sickness is not Lazarus' death and entire removal from this world, but generally the glory of God, and specially the glorifying of Me, His Son, which will be effected by my raising him again." Death's temporary victory over us is not complete till our bodies perish and return to dust. This was not allowed in the case of Lazarus, and hence death had not full dominion over him, though he ceased to breathe and became unconscious. It is undeniable that there was something dark and mysterious about our Lord's message. He might of course have said plainly, "Lazarus will die, and then I will raise him again." Yet there is a wonderful likeness between the style of His message and many an unfulfilled prophecy. He said enough to excite hope, and encourage faith and patience and prayer, but not enough to make Mary and Martha leave off praying and seeking God. And is not this exactly what we should feel about many an unfulfilled prediction of things to come? Men complain that prophecies are not so literally fulfilled as to exclude doubt and uncertainty. But they forget that God wisely permits a degree of uncertainty in order to keep us watching and praying. It is just what He did with Martha and Mary here. Let us remember that the final result of Lazarus' sickness is what we should desire as the result of any sickness that comes on us and our families; viz., that God and Christ may be glorified in us. We cannot say, "It shall not end in death;" but we can say, "By God's help, it shall be for God's glory." Chrysostom observes, "The expression that in this passage denotes not cause but consequence. The sickness happened from other causes. Christ used it for the glory of God." Calvin remarks, that God wishes to be honored by Christ being glorified. "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father" (John 5:23.) v5.—[Now Jesus loved Martha, etc.] This verse is meant to show that all the members of the family at Bethany were disciples of Jesus and beloved by Him, the brother as well as the sisters, and one sister as well as the other. A happy family, Lampe remarks, in which all the members were objects of Christ's special love! We know not where Lazarus was at the time when Jesus stopped at Martha's house, in Luke 10:38; perhaps he was not converted at that time. But this is only conjecture. We are generally apt to undervalue the grace of Martha and overvalue that of Mary, because of what happened when Jesus was at Martha's house before. Many foolish things are sometimes lightly said against mothers and mistresses as being Marthas, "careful and troubled about many things." Yet people should remember that different positions call out different phases of character. Mary certainly shines more brightly than Martha in the 10th of Luke; but it is a grave question whether Martha did not outshine her in the 11th of John. Active-minded Christians come out better under some circumstances; quiet-minded Christians, in others. Our Lord teaches us here that He loves all who have grace, though their temperaments differ. Let us learn not to judge others rashly, and not to form hasty estimates of Christians, until we have seen them under every sort of circumstances, in winter as well as summer, in dark days as well as bright. Let it be noted that the Greek word here rendered "loved" (John 11:5), is not the same that is rendered "lovest," in the 3rd verse. (John 11:3.) The word describing the love of Jesus to the three in this verse is a word expressing a high, deep, excellent, and noble affection. It is the same as Mark 10:21, and John 3:16.— The word used in the message of the sisters, is a lower word, such as is used to describe the affection between a parent and child, or husband and wife. It is the word used for "kiss" in Matthew 26:48; Mark 14:44; and Luke 22:47. It is very noticeable that this word is carefully avoided here, when the two sisters are mentioned. The Holy Ghost inspired John to abstain even from the appearance of evil. What a lesson this ought to be to us! Let it be noted that we see here an example of the broad distinction that ought to be drawn between Christ's general love of compassion which He feels towards all mankind, and His special love of election which He feels towards His own members. He loved all sinners to whom He came to preach the Gospel, and He wept over unbelieving Jerusalem. But He specially loved those who believed on Him. v6.—[When He had heard therefore, etc.] It is impossible not to remark an intentional and most instructive connection between this verse and the preceding one. Our Lord loved the family of Bethany, all three of them; and yet when He heard Lazarus was sick, instead of hastening at once to Bethany to heal him, He quietly remained at Bethabara for two days, without moving. We cannot doubt that this delay was intentional and of purpose, and it throws immense light on many of God's providential dealings with His people. We know that the delay caused immense mental pain and suffering to Martha and Mary, and obliged Lazarus to go through all the agony of death, and the sorrow of parting. We can easily imagine the grief and suspense and perplexity in which the household at Bethany must have been kept for four days, when their loving Master did not appear; and we know that our Lord could have prevented it all, but did not. But we know also that if He had at once hurried to Bethany and healed Lazarus, or spoken a word from a distance at Bethabara and commanded his healing, as in John 4:50, the mighty miracle of raising him would never have been wrought, and the wonderful sayings of Bethany would never have been spoken. In short the pain of a few was permitted for the benefit of the whole Church of Christ. We have here the simplest and best account of the permission of evil and suffering. God could prevent it. God does not love to make His creatures suffer. But God sees there are lessons which mankind could not learn unless evil was permitted: therefore God permits it. The suffering of some tends to the good of many. "He that believeth shall not make haste." (Isaiah 28:16.) We shall see at the last day that all was well done. Even the delays and long intervals which puzzle us in God's dealings, are wisely ordered, and are working for good. Like children, we are poor judges of half-finished work. Chrysostom says, "Christ tarried that none might be able to assert that He restored Lazarus when not yet dead, saying it was a lethargy, a fainting, a fit, but not death. He therefore tarried so long that corruption began." Calvin observes, "Let believers learn to suspend their desires, if God does not stretch out His hand to help as soon as they think necessity requires. Whatever may be His delays, He never sleeps, and never forgets His people." Quesnel remarks, "God permits evil, that He may make the power of His grace and the might of His love more conspicuous in the conversion of a sinner." Poole remarks, "We must not judge of Christ's love to us by His mere external dispensations of providence, nor judge that He doth not love us, because He doth not presently come to our help at our time, and in such ways and methods as we think reasonable." We should notice, in this passage, how mysterious are the ways in which Christ sometimes leads His people. We are told that when He talked of going back to Judζa, His disciples were perplexed. It was the very place where the Jews had lately tried to stone their Master. To return thither was to plunge into the midst of danger. These timid Galilζans could not see the necessity or prudence of such a step. "Goest Thou thither again?" they cried. Things such as these are often going on around us. The servants of Christ are often placed in circumstances just as puzzling and perplexing as those of the disciples. They are led in ways of which they cannot see the purpose and object; they are called to fill positions from which they naturally shrink, and which they would never have chosen for themselves. Thousands in every age are continually learning this by their own experience. The path they are obliged to walk in is not the path of their own choice. At present they cannot see its usefulness or wisdom. At times like these, a Christian must call into exercise his faith and patience. He must believe that his Master knows best by what road His servant ought to travel, and that He is leading him, by the right way, to a city of habitation. He may rest assured that the circumstances in which he is placed are precisely those which are most likely to promote his graces and to check his besetting sins. He need not doubt that what he cannot see now he will understand hereafter. He will find one day that there was wisdom in every step of his journey, though flesh and blood could not see it at the time. If the twelve disciples had not been taken back into Judζa, they would not have seen the glorious miracle of Bethany. If Christians were allowed to choose their own course through life, they would never learn hundreds of lessons about Christ and His grace, which they are now taught in God's ways. Let us remember these things. The time may come when we shall be called to take some journey in life which we greatly dislike. When that time comes, let us set out cheerfully, and believe that all is right. We should notice, secondly, in this passage, how tenderly Christ speaks of the death of believers. He announces the fact of Lazarus being dead in language of singular beauty and gentleness: "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth." Every true Christian has a Friend in heaven, of almighty power and boundless love. He is thought of, cared for, provided for, defended by God's eternal Son. He has an unfailing Protector, who never slumbers or sleeps, and watches continually over his interests. The world may despise him, but he has no cause to be ashamed. Father and mother even may cast him out, but Christ having once taken him up will never let him go. He is the "friend of Christ" even after he is dead! The friendships of this world are often fair-weather friendships, and fail us like summer-dried fountains, when our need is the sorest; but the friendship of the Son of God is stronger than death, and goes beyond the grave. The Friend of sinners is a Friend that sticketh closer than a brother. The death of true Christians is "sleep," and not annihilation. It is a solemn and miraculous change, no doubt, but not a change to be regarded with alarm. They have nothing to fear for their souls in the change, for their sins are washed away in Christ's blood. The sharpest sting of death is the sense of unpardoned sin. Christians have nothing to fear for their bodies in the change: they will rise again by and by, refreshed and renewed, after the image of the Lord. The grave itself is a conquered enemy. It must render back its tenants safe and sound, the very moment that Christ calls for them at the last day. Let us remember these things when those whom we love fall asleep in Christ, or when we ourselves receive our notice to quit this world. Let us call to mind in such an hour, that our great Friend takes thought for our bodies as well as for our souls, and that He will not allow one hair of our heads to perish. Let us never forget that the grave is the place where the Lord Himself lay, and that as He rose again triumphant from that cold bed, so also shall all His people. To a mere worldly man death must needs be a terrible thing; but he that has Christian faith, may boldly say, as he lays down life, "I will lay me down in peace, and take my rest: for it is thou, LORD, that makest me dwell in safety." (Psalms 4:8.) We should notice, lastly, in this passage, how much of natural temperament clings to a believer even after conversion. We read that when Thomas saw that Lazarus was dead, and that Jesus was determined, in spite of all danger, to return into Judζa, he said, "Let us also go, that we may die with Him." There can only be one meaning in that expression: it was the language of a despairing and desponding mind, which could see nothing but dark clouds in the picture. The very man who afterwards could not believe that his Master had risen again, and thought the news too good to be true, is just the one of the twelve who thinks that if they go back to Judζa they must all die! Things such as these are deeply instructive, and are doubtless recorded for our learning. They show us that the grace of God in conversion does not so re-mold a man as to leave no trace of his natural bent of character. The sanguine do not altogether cease to be sanguine, nor the desponding to be desponding, when they pass from death to life, and become true Christians. They show us that we must make large allowances for natural temperament, in forming our estimate of individual Christians. We must not expect all God's children to be exactly one and the same. Each tree in a forest has its own peculiarities of shape and growth, and yet all at a distance look one mass of leaf and verdure. Each member of Christ's body has his own distinctive bias, and yet all in the main are led by one Spirit, and love one Lord. The two sisters Martha and Mary, the apostles Peter and John and Thomas, were certainly very unlike one another in many respects. But they had all one point in common: they loved Christ, and were His friends. Let us take heed that we really belong to Christ. This is the one thing needful. If this is made sure, we shall be led by the right way, and end well at last. We may not have the cheerfulness of one brother, or the fiery zeal of another, or the gentleness of another. But if grace reigns within us, and we know what repentance and faith are by experience, we shall stand on the right hand in the great day. Happy is the man of whom, with all his defects, Christ says to saints and angels, "This is our friend." ================== Notes— v7.—[Then after that saith...disciples.] The Greek words which begin this sentence, mark an interval of time even more emphatically than our English version does. The word translated "then" is the same that is translated "after that" in 1 Corinthians 15:6-7. [Let us go...Judζa again.] This is the language of the kind and loving Head of a family, and the Chief in a party of friends. Our Lord does not say, "I shall go to," or, "Follow Me to Judζa," but, "Let us go." It is the voice of a kind Master and Shepherd proposing a thing to His pupils and followers, as though He would allow them to express their opinions about it. How much depends on the manner and language of a leader! The familiar, easy manner in which our Lord is said here to tell His disciples what He proposes to do, gives a pleasant idea of the terms on which they lived with Him. v8.—[His disciples say...Master.] The answer of the disciples is an interesting illustration of the easy terms on which they were with their Master. They tell Him frankly and unreservedly their feelings and fears. Let it be noted that the word rendered "Master" here is the well known word "Rabbi." The use of it shows that there is nothing necessarily insulting, sneering, or discourteous about the term. It was the title of honor and respect given by all Jews to their teachers. Thus John the Baptist's disciples said to him, when jealous for his honor, "Rabbi, he that was with thee," etc. (John 3:26.) [The Jews of late sought to stone Thee.] The "Jews" here mean especially the leaders or principal persons among the Scribes and Pharisees at Jerusalem, as it generally does in John's Gospel. The word rendered "of late" is generally translated "now," or "at this time." There is not another instance of its being translated "of late" in the New Testament. Hence the sentence would be more literally rendered, "The Jews even now were seeking to stone Thee." They allude to the attempt made at the Feast of Dedication a few weeks before. The attempt was so recent that it seemed "even now." [And goest Thou thither again?] This question indicates surprise and fear.—"Do we hear aright? Dost Thou really talk of going back again to Judζa? Dost Thou not fear another assault on Thy life?"—We can easily detect fear for their own safety, as well as their Master's, in the question of the disciples: yet they put it on "Thee," and not on "us." Let us note how strange and unwise our Lord's plans sometimes appear to His short-sighted people. How little the best can understand His ways! v9, v10.—[Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours, etc.] The answer which our Lord makes to the remonstrance of His timid disciples is somewhat remarkable. Instead of giving them a direct reply, bidding them not to be afraid, He first quotes a proverbial saying, and then draws from that saying general lessons about the time which any one who is on a journey will choose for journeying. He draws no conclusion, and leaves the application to be made by the disciples themselves. To an English ear the answer seems far more strange than it would to an Eastern one. To quote a proverb is, even now, a common reply among Orientals. To fill up the sense of our Lord's elliptical reply, and draw the conclusions He meant to be drawn, but did not express, is, however, not very easy. The following may be taken as a paraphrase of it:— "Are not the working hours of the day twelve? You know they are, speaking generally. If a man on a journey walks during these twelve daylight hours, he sees his road, and does not stumble or fall, because the sun, which is the light of the world, shines on his path. If, on the contrary, a man on a journey chooses to walk in the unreasonable hour of night, he is likely to stumble or fall, for lack of light to guide his feet. It is even so with Me. My twelve hours of ministry, my day of work, is not yet over. There is no fear of my life being cut off before the time: I shall not be slain till my work is done. Till my hour is come, I am safe, and not a hair of my head can be touched. I am like one walking in the full light of the sun, and cannot fall. The night will soon be here when I shall walk on earth no longer: but the night has not yet come. There are twelve hours in my day of earthly ministry, and the twelfth with Me has not arrived." This seems to me substantially the correct explanation of our Lord's meaning. The idea of ancient writers, as Hugo and Lyranus, that our Lord meant, by mentioning the twelve hours of the day, that men often change their minds as the day goes on, and that the Jews, perhaps, no longer wished to kill Him, is very improbable and unsatisfactory. I grant that the conclusion of the tenth verse, "there is no light in him," presents some difficulty. The simplest explanation is, that it only means, "because he has no light." Pearce conjectures that the clause should be rendered, "Because there is no light in it: viz., the world." The Greek will perhaps bear this interpretation. Let us note that the great principle underlying the two verses is the old saying in another form, "Every man is immortal till his work is done." A recollection of that saying is an excellent antidote against fears of danger. The missionary in heathen lands, and the minister at home, pressed down by unhealthy climate, or over-abundant work, may take comfort in it, after their Lord's example. Let us only, by way of caution, make sure that our dangers meet us in the path of duty, and that we do not go out of the way to seek them. Rupertus suggests that our Lord had in His mind His own doctrine, that He was the Light and Sun of the world. Now as the sun continues shining all the twelve hours of the day, and no mortal power can stop it, so He would have the disciples know that until the evening of His own course arrived, no power of the Jews could possibly check, arrest, or do Him harm. As to the disciples, He seems to add, "So long as I am shining on you with my bodily presence, you have nothing to fear; you will not fall into trouble. When I am taken from you, and not till then, you will be in danger of falling into the hands of persecutors, and even of being put to death." Ecolampadius takes the same view. Melancthon thinks that our Lord uses a proverbial mode of speech, in order to teach us the great broad lesson that we must attend to the duties of our day, station, and calling, and then leave the event to God. In the path of duty all will turn out right. Calvin, Bullinger, Gualter, and Brentius, take much the same view. Leigh remarks, "Christ comforts from God's providence. God made the day twelve hours. Who can make it shorter? Who can shorten man's life?" Does it not come to this, that our Lord would have the disciples know that He Himself could not take harm till His day of work was over, and that they could take no harm while He was with them? (Compare Luke 13:32-33.) Bishop Ellicot suggests that this was the very time in our Lord's ministry when He said to the Pharisee, "I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk to-day and to-morrow and the day following." But I doubt this. It is certain that there came a time when our Lord said, "This is your hour, and the power of darkness," to His enemies. Then He was taken, and His disciples fled. v11.—[These things...our friend Lazarus...sleepeth.] In this verse our Lord breaks the fact that Lazarus is dead, to His disciples. He does it in words of matchless beauty and tenderness. After saying "these things" about the twelve hours of the day, which we have considered in the last verse, He seems to make a slight pause. Then, "after that," comes the announcement, which would be more literally rendered, "Lazarus, the friend of us, has been laid asleep." The word "sleepeth" means, "is dead." It is a gentle and pathetic way of expressing the most painful of events that can befall man, and a most suitable one, when we remember that after death comes resurrection. In dying we are not annihilated. Like sleepers, we lie down to rise again. Estius well remarks, "Sleeping, in the sense of dying, is only applied to men, because of the hope of the resurrection. We read no such thing of brutes." The use of the figure is so common in Scripture, that it is almost needless to give references. (See Deuteronomy 31:16; 2 Kings 21:18; Daniel 12:2; Matthew 27:52; Mark 5:39; Acts 7:60; Acts 13:36; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:6-18; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10.) But it is a striking fact that the figure is frequently used by great heathen writers, showing clearly that the tradition of a life after death existed even among the heathen. Homer, Sophocles, Virgil, and Catullus, supply instances. However, the Christian believer is the only one who can truly regard death as sleep,—that is, as a healthy, refreshing thing, which can do him no harm. Many among ourselves, perhaps, are not aware that the figure of speech exists among us in full force in the word "cemetery," applied to burial ground. That word is drawn from the very Greek verb which our Lord uses here. It is literally a "sleeping place." The word "friend," applied to Lazarus, gives a beautiful idea of the relation between the Lord Jesus and all His believing people. Each one is His "friend,"—not servant, or subject only, but "friend." A poor believer has no cause to be ashamed. He has a Friend greater than kings and nobles, who will show Himself friendly to all eternity. A dead saint lying in the grave is not cut off from Christ's love: even in his grave, he is still the friend of Christ. The expression "our," attached to friend, teaches the beautiful lesson that every friend of Christ is or should be the friend of all Christians. Believers are all one family of brothers and sisters, and members of one body. Lazarus was not "my" friend, but "our" friend. If anyone is a friend of Christ, every other believer should be ready and willing to hold out his hand to him, and say, "You are my friend." When our Lord says, "I go that I may awaken him out of sleep," He proclaims His deliberate intention and purpose to raise Lazarus from the dead. He boldly challenges the attention of the disciples, and declares that He is going to Bethany, to restore a dead man to life. Never was bolder declaration made. None surely would make it but One who knew that He was very God. "I go," is equivalent to saying, "I am at once setting forth on a journey to Bethany." The expression "that I may awake him out of sleep," is one word in Greek, and is equivalent to "that I may unsleep him." What our Lord went to do at Bethany, He is soon coming to do for all our friends who are asleep in Christ. He is coming to awaken them. Some commentators have thought that Lazarus died in the very moment that our Lord said, "Our friend sleepeth," and that it means, "Lazarus has just fallen asleep and died." But this is only conjecture, though doubtless our Lord knew the moment of his decease. Let it be noted that our Lord says, "I go," in the singular number, and not "Let us go." Does it not look as if He meant, "Whether you like to go or not, I intend to go"? Hall remarks, "None can awaken Lazarus out of this sleep, but He that made Lazarus. Every mouse or gnat can raise us up from that other sleep, none but an omnipotent power from this." v12.—[Then said...disciples...sleep...well.] It seems strange that the disciples should misunderstand our Lord's words, considering how commonly death was called sleep. But their unwillingness to go into Judζa probably made them shut their eyes to our Lord's real meaning. Most writers think that the disciples referred to the general opinion, that sleep in a sickness is a sign of amendment. Some, however, suggest that they had gathered from the messenger sent by Martha and Mary what was the precise nature of Lazarus' illness, and therefore knew that it was one in which sleep was a favorable symptom. The Greek word for "he shall do well," is curious. It is the same that is often rendered, "shall be made whole." Sometimes it is "healed," and generally "saved." The latent thought is manifest: "If Lazarus sleeps, he is getting better, and there is no need of our going to Judζa." v13.—[Howbeit Jesus spake, etc.] This verse is one of those explanatory glosses which John frequently puts into his narrative parenthetically. The three first words of the verse would be more literally rendered, "But Jesus had spoken." How the disciples could have "thought" or "supposed" that our Lord meant literal sleep, and not death, seems strange, when we remember that Peter, James, and John, had heard Him use the same expression after the death of the ruler's daughter: "The maid sleepeth." (Matthew 9:24.) Two probable reasons may be assigned:— one is that they had heard from the messenger that Lazarus' recovery turned on his getting sleep, and that if he only got some sleep he might do well; the other is that they were so afraid of returning to Judζa, that they determined to believe Lazarus was getting better, and to construe our Lord's words in the way most agreeable to their fears. It is common to observe that men will not understand what they do not want to understand. Quesnel remarks here, "The misunderstanding of the Apostles was a great instance of stupidity, and shows plainly how sensual and carnal their minds still were. The knowledge of this is useful in order to convince incredulous persons that the Apostles were not of themselves capable either of converting the world, or of inventing the wonderful things and sublime discourses which they relate." The readiness of the disciples to misunderstand figurative language is curiously shown in two other places, where our Lord spoke of "leaven" and "meat" (Matthew 16:6; John 4:32.) v14.—[Then said...plainly...Lazarus...dead.] Here at last our Lord breaks the fact of Lazarus' death to His disciples openly, and without any further reserve. He had approached the subject gently and delicately, and thus prepared their minds for something painful, by steps. First he said simply, "Let us go into Judζa," without assigning a reason. Secondly He said, "Lazarus sleepeth." Lastly He says, "Lazarus is dead." There is a beautiful consideration for feelings in these three steps. It is a comfortable thought that our mighty Savior is so tender-hearted and gentle. It is an instructive lesson to us on the duty of dealing gently with others, and specially in announcing afflictions. The word rendered "plainly" is the same as in John 10:24. Here, as there, it does not mean "in plain, intelligible language," so much as "openly, unreservedly, and without mystery." v15.—[And I am glad...not there...believe.] This sentence would be more literally rendered, "And I rejoice on account of you, in order that ye may believe, that I was not there." Our Lord evidently means that He was glad that He was not at Bethany when Lazarus became ill, and had not healed Him before his death, as in all probability He would have done. The result now would be most advantageous to the disciples. Their faith would receive an immense confirmation, by witnessing the stupendous miracle of Lazarus being raised from the dead. Thus great good, in one respect, would come out of great evil. The announcement they had just heard might be very painful and distressing, but He, as their Master, could not but be glad to think how mightily their faith would be strengthened in the end. Let us note that our Lord does not say, "I am glad Lazarus is dead," but "I am glad I was not there." Had He been there, He seems to say, He could not have refused the prayer of Martha and Mary, to heal His friend. We are not intended to be so unfeeling as to rejoice in the death of Christian friends: but we may rejoice in the circumstances attending their deaths, and the glory redounding to Christ, and the benefit accruing to saints from them. Let us note that our Lord does not say, "I am glad for the sake of Martha and Mary and Lazarus that I was not there," but "for your sakes." It is no pleasure to Him to see His individual members suffering, weeping, and dying; but He does rejoice to see the good of many spring out of the suffering of a few. Hence He permits some to be afflicted, in order that many may be instructed through their afflictions. This is the key to permission of evil in the world: it is for the good of the many. When we ourselves are allowed of God to suffer, we must remember this. We must believe there are wise reasons why God does not come to our help at once and take the suffering away. Let us note our Lord's desire that His disciples "may believe." He did not mean that they might believe now for the first time, but that they might believe more firmly, heartily, and unhesitatingly; that their faith in short might receive a great increase by seeing Lazarus raised. We see here the immense importance of faith. To believe on Christ, and trust God's word, is the first step towards heaven. To believe more, and trust more, is the real secret of Christian growth, progress, and prosperity. To make us believe more is the end of all Christ's dealings with us. (See John 14:1.) [Nevertheless let us go unto him.] The first word here would be more literally rendered "But." It is as though our Lord said, "But let us delay no longer: let us cast aside all fears of danger; let us go to our friend." It is noteworthy that our Lord says, "Let us go to Lazarus," though he was dead, and would be buried by the time they reached Bethany. Can it be that the disciples thought He had David's words about his dead child in His mind, "I shall go to him"? The words of Thomas, in the next verse, seem to make it possible. We may notice three gradations in our Lord's language about going to Bethany. The first, in John 11:7;— there He says in the plural, "Let us all go into Judζa." The second, in John 11:11; there He says in the singular, "I go to awake him:" as though He was ready to go alone.— The third is here in the plural, "Let us all go." (John 11:15.) Toletus thinks that by these words our Lord meant to hint His intention of raising Lazarus. Burkitt remarks, "O love, stronger than death! The grave cannot separate Christ and His friends. Other friends accompany us to the brink of the grave, and then they leave us.— Neither life nor death can separate from the love of Christ." Bengel remarks, "It is beautifully consonant with divine propriety, that no one is ever read of as having died while the Prince of Life was present." v16.—[Then said Thomas...go...die with Him.] The disciple here named is also mentioned in John 14:5, and John 20:24-27. On each occasion he appears in the same state of mind,— ready to look at the black side of everything,— taking the worst view of the position, and raising doubts and fears. In John 14:5, he does not know where our Lord is going. In John 20:25, he cannot believe our Lord has risen. Here he sees nothing but danger and death, if his Master returns to Judζa. Yet He is true and faithful nevertheless. He will not forsake Christ, even if death is in the way. "Let us go," he says to his fellow disciples, "and die with our Master. He is sure to be killed if He does go; but we cannot do better than be killed with Him." Some, as Brentius, Grotius, Leigh, Poole, and Hammond think that "with him" refers to Lazarus. But most commentators think that Thomas refers to our Lord: with them I entirely agree. Let it be noted that a man may have notable weaknesses and infirmities of Christian character, and yet be a disciple of Christ. There is no more common fault among believers, perhaps, than despondency and unbelief. A reckless readiness to die and make an end of our troubles is not grace but impatience. Let us observe how extremely unlike one another Christ's disciples were. Peter, for instance, overrunning with zeal and confidence, was the very opposite of desponding Thomas. Yet both had grace, and both loved Christ. We must not foolishly assume that all Christians are exactly like one another in details of character. We must make large allowances, when the main features are right. Let us remember that this same Thomas, so desponding in our Lord's lifetime, was afterwards the very Apostle who first preached the Gospel in India, according to ecclesiastical history, and penetrated further East than any whose name is recorded. Chrysostom says, "The very man who dared not go to Bethany in Christ's company, afterwards ran alone through the world, and dwelt in the midst of nations full of murder and ready to kill him." Some have thought that his Greek name "Didymus," signifying "two" or "double," was given him because of his character being double: viz., part faith and part weakness. But this is very doubtful. In the first three Gospels, in the catalog of the twelve, he is always named together with Matthew the publican. But why we do not know. The Greek word for "fellow disciple," is never used in the New Testament excepting here. There is a grand simplicity about this passage, which is almost spoilt by any human exposition. To comment on it seems like gilding gold or painting lilies. Yet it throws much light on a subject which we can never understand too well: that is, the true character of Christ's people. The portraits of Christians in the Bible are faithful likenesses. They show us saints just as they are. We learn, firstly, what a strange mixture of grace and weakness is to be found even in the hearts of true believers. We see this strikingly illustrated in the language used by Martha and Mary. Both these holy women had faith enough to say, "Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." Yet neither of them seems to have remembered that the death of Lazarus did not depend on Christ's absence, and that our Lord, had He thought fit, could have prevented his death with a word, without coming to Bethany.— Martha had knowledge enough to say, "I know, that even now, whatsoever Thou wilt ask of God, God will give it Thee. I know that my brother shall rise again at the last day: I believe that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God:" but even she could get no further. Her dim eyes and trembling hands could not grasp the grand truth that He who stood before her had the keys of life and death, and that in her Master dwelt "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Revelation 1:18; Colossians 2:9.) She saw indeed, but through a glass darkly. She knew, but only in part. She believed, but her faith was mingled with much unbelief. Yet both Martha and Mary were genuine children of God, and true Christians. These things are graciously written for our learning. It is good to remember what true Christians really are. Many and great are the mistakes into which people fall, by forming a false estimate of the Christian's character. Many are the bitter things which people write against themselves, by expecting to find in their hearts what cannot be found on this side of heaven. Let us settle it in our minds that saints on earth are not perfect angels, but only converted sinners. They are sinners renewed, changed, sanctified, no doubt; but they are yet sinners, and will be till they die. Like Martha and Mary, their faith is often entangled with much unbelief, and their grace compassed round with much infirmity. Happy is that child of God who understands these things, and has learned to judge rightly both of himself and others. Rarely indeed shall we find the saint who does not often need that prayer, "Lord, I believe: help Thou mine unbelief." (Mark 9:24.) We learn, secondly, what need many believers have of clear views of Christ's person, office, and power. This is a point which is forcibly brought out in the well-known sentence which our Lord addressed to Martha. In reply to her vague and faltering expression of belief in the resurrection at the last day, He proclaims the glorious truth, "I am the resurrection and the life;"— "I, even I, thy Master, am He that has the keys of life and death in His hands." And then He presses on her once more that old lesson, which she had doubtless often heard, but never fully realized:— "He that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die." There is matter here which deserves the close consideration of all true Christians. Many of them complain of want of sensible comfort in their religion. They do not feel the inward peace which they desire. Let them know that vague and indefinite views of Christ are too often the cause of all their perplexities. They must try to see more clearly the great object on which their faith rests. They must grasp more firmly His love and power toward them that believe, and the riches He has laid up for them even now in this world. We are, many of us, sadly like Martha. A little general knowledge of Christ as the only Savior, is often all that we possess. But of the fullness that dwells in Him, of His resurrection, His priesthood, His intercession, His unfailing compassion, we have tasted little or nothing at all. They are things of which our Lord might well say to many, as he did to Martha, "Believest thou this?" Let us take shame to ourselves that we have named the name of Christ so long, and yet know so little about Him. What right have we to wonder that we feel so little sensible comfort in our Christianity? Our slight and imperfect knowledge of Christ is the true reason of our discomfort. Let the time past suffice us to have been lazy students in Christ's school: let the time to come find us more diligent in trying to "know Him and the power of His resurrection." (Philippians 3:10.) If true Christians would only strive, as Paul says, to "comprehend what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge," they would be amazed at the discoveries they would make. (Ephesians 3:18-19.) They would soon find, like Hagar, that there are wells of water near them of which they had no knowledge. They would soon discover that there is more heaven to be enjoyed on earth than they had ever thought possible. The root of a happy religion is clear, distinct, well-defined knowledge of Jesus Christ. More knowledge would have saved Martha many sighs and tears. Knowledge alone, no doubt, if unsanctified, only "puffeth up." (1 Corinthians 8:1.) Yet without clear knowledge of Christ in all His offices we cannot expect to be established in the faith, and steady and unmoved in the time of need. ================== Notes— v17.—[So when Jesus came.] We are left entirely to conjecture as to the time spent by our Lord in His journey from Bethabara to Bethany. We do not know anything certain of the place where He was abiding, except that it was beyond Jordan. Probably it was between twenty and thirty miles from Bethany, and this distance, to those who traveled on foot, would be at least a day's journey. [He found...lain...grave four days already.] The Greek form of language here is peculiar, and a literal translation would be impossible. It would be, "He found him being already four days in the grave." It is highly probable that Lazarus was buried the same day that he died. In a country like Palestine, with a hot climate, it is quite impossible to keep corpses long unburied, without danger and discomfort to the living. A man may talk to his friend one day, and find him buried the next day. One thing is abundantly proved by this verse. Lazarus must certainly have been dead, and not in a trance or swoon. A person lying in a grave for four days, all reasonable people would admit, must have been a dead man. The various forms of death which our Lord is recorded to have triumphed over should not be forgotten. Jairus' daughter was just dead; the son of the widow of Nain was being carried to the grave; Lazarus, the most extraordinary case of all, had been four days in the tomb. The expression, "He found," in this verse, must not be thought to imply any surprise. We know that our Lord began His journey from Bethabara with a full knowledge that Lazarus was dead. What "He found" applies to Lazarus therefore, and to the precise length of time that he had been in the grave. He was not only dead, but buried. We can well imagine what a sorrowful time those four days must have been to Martha and Mary, and how many thoughts must have crossed their minds as to the reason of our Lord's delay, as to the day He would come, and the like. Nothing so wears us down as suspense and uncertainty. Yet of all graces there is none so glorifying to God and sanctifying to the heart as that of patience or quietly waiting. How long Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and David were kept waiting. Jesus loves to show the world that His people can wait. Martha and Mary had to exemplify this. Well if we can do likewise! Gomarus discusses at length the curious question, where the soul of Lazarus was during those four days. He dismisses as unscriptural the idea that it was yet in the body, and seems to hold that it was in Paradise. The "four days" are easily accounted for, if we remember the time occupied by the messenger from Bethany, the two days' delay at Bethabara, and the journey to Bethany. v18.—[Now Bethany...nigh...Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off.] This verse shows that John wrote for readers who were not acquainted with Palestine. According to his manner, he gives a parenthetical description of the situation of Bethany, partly to show how very near to Jerusalem the wonderful miracle he relates was worked,— within a walk of the temple, and almost within view; and partly to account for the number of the Jews who came from Jerusalem to comfort Martha and Mary. The distance, fifteen furlongs, is rather less than two miles. The use of the expression, "about," shows that the Holy Ghost condescends to use man's common form of language in describing things, and that such expressions are not inconsistent with inspiration. (See John 2:6, and John 6:19.) v19.—[And many Jews...came...Mary.] This sentence would be more literally rendered, "Many from among the Jews had come to those around Martha and Mary." Who these Jews were it is impossible to say, except that they evidently came from Jerusalem. One can hardly suppose that they were the leaders and rulers of the Pharisees. Such men would not be likely to care for friends of Jesus, and would hardly have condescended to visit Martha and Mary, who were doubtless known to be His disciples. Of course it is possible that Simon the leper, in whose house Lazarus died, may have been a man of consideration, and that the Jews may have come out of respect to him. At any rate it is clear that those who saw the stupendous miracle of this chapter were Jerusalem Jews, and were "many," and not few.— The expression, "Those around Martha and Mary," is a form of language not uncommon in Greek, and is probably rightly translated in our version. It can hardly mean, "the women who had come to mourn with Martha and Mary," though it is well known that women were the chief mourners at funerals. It is, however, only fair to say that Beza decidedly holds that the women and female friends who had come to mourn with Mary and Martha are meant in this verse. [To comfort them concerning their brother.] This appears to have been a common practice among the Jews. When anyone died, friends and neighbors assembled for several days at the house of the deceased, to mourn with and comfort the relatives. Lightfoot specially mentions it. The same custom prevails in many parts of the world at the present day: Hindostan and Ireland are instances. We cannot doubt that many of these Jews came to Martha and Mary from form and custom, and not from any genuine sympathy or kind feeling, much less from any unity of spiritual taste. Yet it is striking to observe how God blesses even the semblance of sympathy. By coming they saw Christ's greatest miracle. If unbelief can sympathize, how much more should grace. One thing at any rate seems very clearly proved by this verse. Whatever was the rank or position of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, they were well-known people, and anything that happened in their house at Bethany was soon public news in Jerusalem. Had they been strangers from Galilee, the thing named in this verse would not have been written. Chrysostom thinks the Evangelist mentioned the Jews coming to comfort Martha and Mary, as one of the many circumstances proving that Lazarus was really dead. They evidently thought him dead, or they would not have come. Lightfoot gives a long and curious account of the customs of the Jews about comforting mourners. He says that "thirty days were allotted for the time of mourning. The three first days were for weeping; seven days for lamentation; and thirty days for intermission from washing or shaving. The beds in the house of mourning were all taken down and laid on the ground, as soon as the coffin left the house. The comforter sat on the floor; the bereaved sat chief. The comforter might not say a word till the chief mourner broke silence." Poole observes that the mourning for Jacob was forty days, for Aaron and Moses thirty days. (Genesis 50:3; Numbers 20:29; Deuteronomy 34:8.) v20.—[Then Martha...heard...Jesus...coming...met him.] The Greek word for "was coming," would have been more literally translated, "is coming," or "comes," in the present tense. It then gives the idea that Martha received from some friend, servant, or watchman, who was on the lookout on the road from Jordan, the message long looked for, "Jesus is in sight:" "He is coming." She then hurried out, and met our Lord outside the village. The Greek is simply, "met Him;" and "went" is needless. Bullinger thinks that Martha, with characteristic activity, was bustling after domestic duties, and heard from some one that Jesus was coming, and ran to meet Him, without going to tell Mary. [But Mary sat still...house.] While Martha hurried out to meet Jesus, Mary continued sitting in the house. Martha's "met" is a perfect tense; Mary's "sat" is an imperfect. It is impossible not to see the characteristic temperament of each sister coming out here, and doubtless it is written for our learning. Martha— active, stirring, busy, demonstrative— cannot wait, but runs impulsively to meet Jesus. Mary— quiet, gentle, pensive, meditative, contemplative, meek,— sits passively at home. Yet I venture to think that of the two sisters, Martha here appears to most advantage. There is such a thing as being so crushed and stunned by our affliction that we do not adorn our profession under it. Is there not something of this in Mary's conduct throughout this chapter? There is a time to stir, as well as to sit still; and here, by not stirring, Mary certainly missed hearing our Lord's glorious declaration about Himself. I would not be mistaken in saying this. Both these holy women were true disciples; yet if Mary showed more grace on a former occasion than Martha, I think Martha here showed more than Mary. Let us never forget that there are differences of temperament among believers, and let us make due allowance for others if they are not quite like ourselves. There are believers who are quiet, passive, silent, and meditative; and believers who are active, stirring, and demonstrative. The well-ordered Church must find room, place, and work for all. We need Marys as well as Marthas, and Marthas as well as Marys. Nothing brings out character so much as sickness and affliction. If we would know how much grace believers have, we should see them in trouble. Let us remember that "sitting" was the attitude of a mourner, among the Jews. Thus Job's friends "sat down with him on the ground." (Job 2:13.) Henry remarks, "In the day of affliction Mary's contemplative and reserved temper proved a snare to her, made her less able to grapple with grief, and disposed her to melancholy. It will be our wisdom to watch against the temptations, and improve the advantages of our natural temper." v21.—[Then said Martha...if Thou...not died.] This is the first account of Martha's feelings. It was the uppermost thought in her mind, and with honest impulsiveness she brings it out at once. It is easy to detect in it a strange mixture of emotions. Here is passion, not unmixed with a tinge of reproach. "I wish you had been here: why did you not come sooner? You might have prevented my brother's death." Here is love, confidence, and devotion creeping out. "I wish you had been here. We loved you so much. We depended so entirely on your love. We felt if you had been here all would be ordered well." Here is faith. "I wish you had been here. I believe you could have healed my brother, and kept death from him." Nevertheless there is something of unbelief at bottom. Martha forgets that the bodily presence of Jesus was not necessary in order to cure her brother, or to prevent his death. She must have known what our Lord did for the Centurion's servant, and the ruler of Capernaum. He had but to speak the word anywhere and Lazarus would have recovered. But memories often fail in time of trouble. Ferus remarks how apt we all are to say, as Martha, "If God had been here, if Christ had been present, this would not have happened; as if Christ was not always present, and everywhere near His people!" Henry remarks that in cases like Martha's, "we are apt to add to our trouble by fancying what might have been. If such a method had been taken, such a physician employed, my friend had not died! which is more than we know. And what good does it do? When God's will is done, our business is to submit." v22.—[But I know...even now...ask...give it thee.] In these words poor Martha's faith and hope shine clearly and unmistakably, though not without serious blemishes. "Even now," she says, "though my brother is dead and lying in the grave, I know, and feel confident, from the many proofs I have seen of Thy power, that whatsoever things Thou mayest ask of God, God will give them to Thee. I must therefore even now cling to the hope that in some way or other Thou wilt help us." The faith of these words is plain and unmistakable. Martha hopes desperately against hope, that somehow all will be right, though she knows not how. She has strong confidence in the efficacy of our Lord's prayers. The presence of dim views and indistinct apprehensions of Christ in Martha's mind, is as evident as her faith. She speaks as if our Lord was a human prophet only, and had no independent power of His own, as God, to work a miracle, and as if He could not command a cure, but must ask God for it, as Elisha did. She must have strangely forgotten the manner in which our Lord had often worked His miracles. Chrysostom remarks, that she speaks as if Christ was only "some virtuous and approved mortal." Let us note here that there may be true faith and love toward Christ in a person, and yet much dimness and ignorance mixed up with it. Love to Christ, in Christian women especially, is often much clearer than faith and knowledge. Hence women are more easily led astray by false doctrine than men. It is of the utmost importance to remember that there are degrees of faith and knowledge. How small a degree of faith may save, and how much of ignorance may be found even in one who is on the way to heaven, are deep points which probably the last day alone will fully disclose. Let us do Martha the justice to observe that she shows great confidence in the value and efficacy of prayer. v23.—[Jesus saith...brother...rise again.] These words, the first spoken by our Lord after arriving at Bethany, are very remarkable. They sound as if He saw the vague nature of Martha's faith, and would gradually lead her on to clearer and more distinct views of Himself, His office, and Person. He therefore begins by the broad, general promise, "Thy brother shall be raised up." He does not say when or how. If His disciples heard him say this, they might have some clue to His meaning, as He had said, "I go that I may awake him out of sleep." But Martha had not heard that. Let us note that our Lord loves to draw out the faith and knowledge of His people by degrees. If He told us everything at once, plainly, and without any room for misunderstanding, it would not be good for us. Exercise is useful for all our graces. Rollock sees in this verse a signal example of our Lord's unwillingness to "break the bruised reed, or quench the smoking flax." He nourishes and encourages the little spark of faith which Martha had. v24.—[Martha...I know....resurrection...last day.] Martha here reveals the extent of her faith and knowledge. She knows and feels sure that her brother will be raised again from the dead in the last day, when the resurrection takes place. This, as a pious Jewess, she had learned from the old Testament Scriptures, and as a Christian believer, she had gathered even more distinctly from the teaching of Jesus. But she does not say, "I know and feel confident" of anything more. She may perhaps have had some glimmering of hope that Jesus would do something, but she does not say, "I know that He will." General faith is easier than particular. We see from this verse that the resurrection of the body formed part of the creed of the Jewish Church, and of the faith of our Lord's disciples. Martha's "I know," sounds as if she remembered the words of Job, "I know that my Redeemer liveth." What she did not understand, or had failed to remember, was our Lord's peculiar office as Lord of the resurrection. We cannot now understand how she can have failed to hear what our Lord had said before the Sanhedrim. (John 5:25-29.) Very probably she was not at Jerusalem at the time. If she did hear it, she evidently had not comprehended it. Even our Lord's teaching was often not taken in by His people! How much less must His ministers expect all their sermons to be understood. To my eyes there is an evident tone of disappointment about Martha's speech. It is as though she said, "I know, of course, that he will rise again at last; but that is cold comfort. It is a far distant event. I want nearer and better consolation." Hutcheson remarks, "It is no uncommon thing to see men believing great things that are far off, and about which they have no present exercise, when yet their faith proves weak in the matter of a present trial, though less difficult than that which they profess to believe." v25.—[Jesus said...I am...resurrection...life.] In this and the following verses, our Lord corrects Martha's feeble and inadequate notions, and sets before her more exalted views of Himself. As Chrysostom says, "He shows her that He needed none to help Him." He tells her that He is not merely a human teacher of the resurrection, but the Divine Author of all resurrection, whether spiritual or physical, and the Root and Fountain of all life. "I am that high and holy One who by taking man's nature upon Me, have ennobled his body, and made its resurrection possible. I am the great First Cause and Procurer of man's resurrection, the Conqueror of death, and the Savior of the body. I am the great Spring and Source of all life, and whatever life anyone has, eternal, spiritual, physical, is all owing to me. All that are raised from the grave will be raised by Me. All that are spiritually quickened are quickened by Me. Separate from Me there is no life at all. Death came by Adam: life comes by Me." All must feel that this is a deep saying, so deep that we see but a little of it. One thing only is very clear and plain: none could use this language but one who knew and felt that He was very God. No prophet or Apostle ever spoke in this way. I do not feel sure that the two first words of this verse do not contain a latent reference to the great title of Jehovah, "I am." The Greek quite permits it. [He that believeth...Me...dead...live.] This sentence receives two interpretations. Some, as Calvin and Hutcheson, hold that "dead" here means spiritually dead.— Others, as Bullinger, Gualter, Brentius, Musculus, hold that "dead" means bodily dead.— With these last I entirely agree, partly because of the point that our Lord is pressing on Martha, partly because of the awkwardness of speaking of a believer as "dead." Moreover, the expression is a verb,— "though he has died," and not an adjective,— "is a dead person." The sense I believe to be this: "He that believes in Me, even if he has died, and been laid in the grave, like thy brother, shall yet live, and be raised again through my power. Faith in Me unites such a one to the Fountain of all life, and death can only hold him for a short time. As surely as I, the Head, have life, and cannot be kept a prisoner by the grave, so surely all my members, believing in Me, shall live also." v26.—[And whosoever liveth...believeth...never die.] In this verse our Lord seems to me to speak of living believers, as in the last verse He had spoken of dead ones. Here, then, He makes the sweeping declaration, that "everyone who believes in Him shall never die:" that is, "he shall not die eternally," as the Burial Service of the Church of England has it. The second death shall have no power over him. The sting of bodily death shall be taken away. He partakes of a life that never ends, from the moment that he believes in Christ. His body may be laid in the grave for a little season, but only to be raised after a while to glory; and his soul lives on uninterruptedly for evermore, and, like the great risen Head, dieth no more. That there are great depths in this and the preceding sentence, every reverent believer will always admit. We feel that we do not see the bottom. The difficulty probably arises from the utter inability of our gross, carnal natures to comprehend the mysteries of life, death, and resurrection of any kind. One thing is abundantly clear, and that is the importance of faith in Christ. "He that believeth" is the man who though dead shall live, and shall never die. Let us take care that we believe, and then all shall one day be plain. The simple questions, "What is life, and what is death?" contain enough to silence the wisest philosopher. [Believest thou this?] This searching question is the application to Martha of the great doctrines just laid down. "Thou believest that the dead will rise. It is well. But dost thou believe that I am the Author of resurrection, and the source of life? Dost thou realize that I, thy Teacher and Friend, am very God, and have the keys of death and the grave in my hands? Hast thou yet got hold of this? If thou hast not, and only knowest me as a prophet sent to teach good and comfortable things, thou hast only received half the truth." Some questions like these are very useful. How little we most of us know what we really believe, and what we do not; what we have grasped and made our own, and what we hold loosely. Above all, how little we know what we really believe about Christ. Melancthon points out how immensely important it is to know whether we really have faith, and believe what we hold. v27.—[She saith...Yea, Lord: I believe.] Poor Martha, pressed home with the mighty question of the last verse, seems hardly able to give any but a vague answer. In truth, we cannot expect that she would speak distinctly about that which she only understood imperfectly. She therefore falls back on a general answer, in which she states simply, yet decidedly, what was the extent of her creed. Our English word, "I believe," hardly gives the full sense of the Greek. It would be literally, "I have believed, and do believe." This is my faith, and has been for a long time. Augustine, Bede, Bullinger, Chemnitius, Gualter, Maldonatus, Quesnel, and Henry, think that the first word of Martha's reply is a full and explicit declaration of faith in everything our Lord had just said. "Yes, Lord, I do believe Thou art the resurrection and the life," etc. I cannot see this myself. The idea seems contradicted by Martha's subsequent conduct at the grave. Musculus strongly maintains that Martha's confession, good as it was, was vague and imperfect. Lampe takes much the same view. [Thou art the Christ...Son of God...come...world.] Here is Martha's statement of her belief. It contains three great points: (1) that Jesus was the Christ, the anointed One, the Messiah; (2) that He was the Son of God; (3) that He was the promised Redeemer, who was to come into the world. She goes no further, and probably she could not. Yet considering the time in which she lived, the universal unbelief of the Jewish nation, and the wonderful difference in the views of believers before the crucifixion and after, I regard it as a noble and glorious confession, and even fuller than Peter's, in Matthew 16:16. Melancthon points out the great superiority of Martha's faith to that of the most intellectual heathen, in a long and interesting passage. It is easy to say that Martha's faith was rather vague, and that she ought to have seen everything more clearly. But we at this period of time, and with all our advantages, are very poor judges of such a matter. Dark and dim as her views were, it was a great thing for a solitary Jewish woman to have got hold of so much truth, when, within two miles, in Jerusalem all who held such a creed as hers were excommunicated and persecuted. Let us note that people's views of truth may be very defective on some points, and yet they may have the root of the matter in them. Martha evidently did not yet fully realize that Christ was the resurrection and the life: but she had learned the alphabet of Christianity,— Christ's Messiahship and Divinity, and doubtless learned more in time. We must not condemn people hastily or harshly because they do not see all at once. Chrysostom says, "Martha seems to me not to understand Christ's saying. She was conscious it was some great thing, but did not perceive the whole meaning, so that when asked one thing she answered another." Toletus remarks, "Martha thought she believed everything Christ said, while she believed Him to be the true promised Messiah. And she did truly believe, but her faith was implicit and general. It is just as if some rustic, being questioned about some proposition of faith which he does not quite comprehend, replies, 'I believe in the Holy Church.' So here Martha said, 'I believe, Lord, that Thou art the true Christ, and that all things Thou sayest are true;' and yet she did not distinctly perceive them." This is a remarkable testimony from a Romanist. Ought we not, perhaps, to make some allowance for the distress and affliction in which Martha was when she made her confession? Is it fair to expect a person in her position to speak as distinctly and precisely as one not in trouble? v28.—[And when she had said this, etc.] The affection of Martha for her sister appears here. Once assured that her Master was come, and perhaps somewhat cheered by the few words He spoke, she hastens home to tell Mary that Jesus was come, and had called for her. We are not told expressly that Jesus had mentioned Mary, but we may suppose that He did, and had asked where she was. The word "secretly" may be applied to the word which follows, if we like, and it would then mean that "Martha called Mary, saying secretly." This is probably the correct rendering. The words rendered, "is come" would be more literally translated, "is present: is actually here." The expression, "the Master," is probably the name by which our Lord was familiarly known by the family at Bethany. It is literally, "the Teacher." Bullinger remarks that the word "secretly" is purposely inserted, to show that the Jews who followed Mary had no idea that Jesus was come. Had they known it, he thinks, they would not have followed her and so would not have seen the miracle. Hall evidently thinks that Martha told Mary "secretly," for fear of the unbelieving Jews who were among the comforters. He remarks, "Christianity doth not bid us abate anything of our wariness and honest policy: yea, it requires us to have no less of the serpent than of the dove." v29.—[As soon as she heard, etc.] The two last words in this sentence are both in the present tense. It would be more literally rendered, "She, when she heard, arises quickly and comes to Him." It is evident, I think, that the sudden movement of Mary was not caused by hearing that Jesus was come, but that Jesus called for her. It is not unlikely, from the word "arose," that Mary was lying or sitting prostrate on the ground, under the pressure of grief. We may also well suppose that our Lord, who doubtless knew her state, asked for her, in order to rouse her to exertion. When David heard that his child was dead, and nothing left for him to do but to be resigned, he "arose from off the earth." (2 Samuel 12:20.) Not many passages in the New Testament are more wonderful than the simple narrative contained in these eight verses. It brings out, in a most beautiful light, the sympathizing character of our Lord Jesus Christ. It shows us Him who is "able to save to the uttermost them that come to God by Him," (Hebrews 7:25,) as able to feel as He is to save. It shows us Him who is One with the Father, and the Maker of all things, entering into human sorrows, and shedding human tears. We learn, for one thing, in these verses, how great a blessing God sometimes bestows on actions of kindness and sympathy. It seems that the house of Martha and Mary at Bethany was filled with mourners when Jesus arrived. Many of these mourners, no doubt, knew nothing of the inner life of these holy women. Their faith, their hope, their love to Christ, their discipleship, were things of which they were wholly ignorant. But they felt for them in their heavy bereavement, and kindly came to offer what comfort they could. By so doing they reaped a rich and unexpected reward. They beheld the greatest miracle that Jesus ever wrought. They were eye-witnesses when Lazarus came forth from the tomb. To many of them, we may well believe, that day was a spiritual birth. The raising of Lazarus led to a resurrection in their souls. How small sometimes are the hinges on which eternal life appears to depend! If these people had not sympathized they might never have been saved. We need not doubt that these things were written for our learning. To show sympathy and kindness to the sorrowful is good for our own souls, whether we know it or not. To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, to weep with them that weep, to try to bear one another's burdens, and lighten one another's cares,— all this will make no atonement for sin, and will not take us to heaven. Yet it is healthy employment for our hearts, and employment which none ought to despise. Few perhaps are aware that one secret of being miserable is to live only for ourselves, and one secret of being happy is to try to make others happy, and to do a little good in the world. It is not for nothing that these words were written by Solomon, "It is better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting:"— "The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth." (Ecclesiastes 7:2, Ecclesiastes 7:4.) The saying of our Lord is too much overlooked: "Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward." (Matthew 10:42.) The friends of Martha and Mary found that promise wonderfully verified. In an age of peculiar selfishness and self-indulgence, it would be well if they had more imitators. We learn, for another thing, what a depth of tender sympathy there is in Christ's heart towards His people. We read that when our Lord saw Mary weeping, and the Jews also weeping with her, "He groaned in the spirit and was troubled." We read even more than this. He gave outward expression to His feelings: He "wept." He knew perfectly well that the sorrow of the family of Bethany would soon be turned into joy, and that Lazarus in a few minutes would be restored to his sisters. But though he knew all this, he "wept." This weeping of Christ is deeply instructive. It shows us that it is not sinful to sorrow. Weeping and mourning are sadly trying to flesh and blood, and make us feel the weakness of our mortal nature. But they are not in themselves wrong. Even the Son of God wept.— It shows us that deep feeling is not a thing of which we need be ashamed. To be cold and stoical and unmoved in the sight of sorrow is no sign of grace. There is nothing unworthy of a child of God in tears. Even the Son of God could weep.— It shows us, above all, that the Savior in whom believers trust is a most tender and feeling Savior. He is one who can be touched with sympathy for our infirmities. When we turn to Him in the hour of trouble, and pour out our hearts before Him, He knows what we go through, and can pity. And He is One who never changes. Though He now sits at God's right hand in heaven, His heart is still the same that it was upon earth. We have an Advocate with the Father, who, when He was upon earth, could weep. Let us remember these things in daily life, and never be ashamed of walking in our Master's footsteps. Let us strive to be men and women of a tender heart and a sympathizing spirit. Let us never be ashamed to weep with them that weep, and rejoice with them that rejoice. (Romans 12:15.) Well would it be for the Church and the world if there were more Christians of this stamp and character! The Church would be far more beautiful, and the world be far more happy. ================== Notes— v30.—[Now Jesus was not yet come, etc.] The Greek word for "come" is in the preterperfect tense. The sentence, translated literally, would be, "Jesus had not yet come into the town" when Martha left Him to tell Mary, but was still waiting or remaining in the place outside Bethany, where Martha at first met Him. The word "town" would be more correctly rendered "village," according to our present acceptation of the word. Yet it is fair to remember that words change their meaning with lapse of time. Even at this day a little Suffolk village of 1,400 people, is called a "town" by many of its inhabitants. Calvin thinks that Jesus remained outside Bethany by Martha's request, that His life might not be endangered. v31.—[The Jews then...comforted her...saw Mary...followed her.] It is probable that the persons here mentioned formed a considerable number,—as many as could crowd into the house. "Comforted" in the Greek is the present participle, and implies that they were actually employed in comforting Mary. Concerning the manner of comforting on such occasions, we know nothing certain. People who only talk common places are miserable comforters, and far worse than Job's friends, who sat for seven days saying nothing at all. It may be that among the Jews the mere presence of courteous and sympathizing people was thought a kind attention, and soothed the feelings of the bereaved. The customs of nations differ widely in such matters. It is evident these Jews did not hear Martha's message, and knew nothing of Jesus being near. Some of them perhaps, had they known it, would not have followed Mary; not knowing, they all followed without exception, and unexpectedly became eyewitnesses of a stupendous miracle. All they knew was that Mary went out hastily. They followed in a spirit of kind sympathy, and by so doing reaped a great blessing. Rupertus shrewdly remarks that the Jews did not follow Martha, when she ran to meet Jesus, but did follow Mary. He conjectures that Mary's affliction was deeper and more overwhelming than Martha's, and her friends devoted themselves more to comfort her, as needing most consolation. Yet the simpler reason seems to be that when both sisters had left the house, the friends could hardly do anything else but go out and follow. [She goeth...grave...weep there.] We must suppose from this sentence, that weeping at the grave of dead friends was a custom among the Jews in our Lord's time. In estimating such a custom, which to most thinking persons may seem as useless as rubbing a wound, and very likely to keep up pain without healing, it is only fair to remember that Old Testament views of the state after death were not nearly so well lighted and comfortable as ours. The removal of death's sting, and the resurrection and paradise, were things not nearly so well understood even by the best saints before Christ, as they were after Christ rose again. To most of the Jews in our Lord's time, we can well believe that death was regarded as the end of all happiness and comfort, and the state after death as a dreary blank. When Sadducees, who said there was "no resurrection," were chief rulers and high priests, we may well suppose that the sorrow of many Jews over the death of friends, was a "sorrow without hope." Even at this day, "the place of wailing" at Jerusalem, where the Jews assemble to weep over the foundation stones of the old temple, is a proof that their habit of weeping over crushed hopes is not yet extinct. v32.—[Then when Mary, etc.] We see in this verse that as soon as Mary met our Lord, the first thing she said was almost exactly what Martha had said in the twenty-first verse, and the remarks made there need not be repeated. The similarity shows, at any rate, that throughout the illness of Lazarus, the thoughts of the two sisters had been running in one and the same direction. Both had built all their hopes on Jesus coming. Both had felt confidence that His coming would have saved their brother's life. Both were bitterly disappointed that He did not come. Both had probably kept saying the same words repeatedly, "If our Master would only come, Lazarus would not die." There are, however, one or two touches of difference between the two sisters, here as elsewhere. Let us note them. Mary "fell down" at our Lord's feet, and Martha did not. She was made of softer, feebler character than Martha, and was more completely crushed and overcome than her sister. Mary fell down at our Lord's feet when she "saw" Him. Up to that moment probably she had borne up, and had run to the place where Martha told her Jesus was waiting. But when she actually saw her Master, and remembered how she had longed for a sight of Him for some days, her feelings overcame her, and she broke down. The eyes have a great effect on the feelings of the heart. People often bear up pretty well, till they see something that calls up thoughts. I do not perceive any ground for thinking, as Calvin does, that this "falling at our Lord's feet" was an act of worship, a recognition of our Lord's divinity. It is much more natural and reasonable to regard it as the mere expression of Mary's state of feeling. Trapp remarks that the words of Mary in this verse and of Martha in the former one, show that we are all naturally disposed to make too much of Christ's bodily presence. v33.—[When Jesus therefore saw her, etc.] This is one of those verses which bring out very strongly the real humanity of our Lord, and His power to sympathize with His people. As a real man, He was specially moved when He saw Mary and the Jews weeping. As God, He had no need to hear their plaintive language, and to see their tears in order to learn that they were afflicted. He knew perfectly all their feelings. Yet as man He was like ourselves, peculiarly stirred by the sight of sorrow: for human nature is so constituted, that grief is eminently contagious. If one in a company is deeply touched, and begins to weep, it is extremely likely that others will weep also. This power of sympathy our Lord evidently had in full possession. He saw weeping, and He wept. Let us carefully remark that our Lord never changes. He did not leave behind Him His human nature when He ascended up into heaven. At this moment, at God's right hand, He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and can understand tears as well as ever. Our great High Priest is the very Friend that our souls need, able to save as God, able to feel as man. To talk of Mary feeling for sinners more than Jesus, is to say that which is ignorant and blasphemous. To teach that we can need any other priest, when Jesus is such a feeling Savior, is to teach what is senseless and absurd. [He groaned in spirit.] There is considerable difficulty about this expression. The word rendered "groaned," is only used five times in the New Testament. In Matthew 9:30, and Mark 1:43, it is "straitly charged." In Mark 14:5, it is "murmured." Here, and at John 11:38, it is "groaned." Now what is precisely meant by the phrase? (a) Some, as Ecolampadius, Brentius, Chemnitius, Flacius, and Ferus, maintain firmly that the notion of anger, indignation, and stern rebuke, is inseparable from the word "groaned." They think that the latent idea is the deep and holy indignation with which our Lord was moved at the sight of the ravages which death had made, and the misery sin and the devil had brought into the world. They say it implies the stern and righteous wrath with which the deliverer of a country tyrannized over and trampled down by a rebel, regards the desolation and destruction which the rebel has caused. (b) Some add to this view the idea that "in spirit" means that our Lord groaned through the Holy Ghost, or by the Divine Spirit which dwelt in Him without measure, or by the power of His Godhead. (c) Some, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius, think "groaned in spirit" means that Christ rebuked His own natural feelings by His Divine nature, or restrained His trouble, and in so doing was greatly disturbed. (d) Some, as Gomarus and Lampe, consider that our Lord was moved to holy sorrow and indignation at the sight of the unbelief even of Martha and Mary (expressed by their immoderate grief, as if the case of Lazarus was hopeless), as well as at the sight of the unbelief of the Jews. (e) Some, as Bullinger, Gualter, Diodati, Grotius, Maldonatus, Jansenius, Rollock, and Hutcheson, consider that the phrase simply expresses the highest and deepest kind of inward agitation of mind, an agitation in which grief, compassion, and holy detestation of sin's work in the world, were all mingled and combined. This agitation, however, was entirely inward at present: it was not bodily, but spiritual; not in the flesh, but in the spirit. As Burgon says, the "spirit" here means Christ's inward soul. I prefer this opinion to the former ones, though I fully admit it has difficulties. But it is allowed by Schleusner and Parkhurst, and seems the view of Tyndall, Cranmer, and the Geneva version, as well as of our own. [And was troubled.] This expression is to my mind even more difficult than the one which immediately precedes it. It would be literally translated, as our marginal reading has it, "He troubled Himself." In fact, Wycliffe translates it so. Now what can this mean? Some maintain that in our Lord's mysterious Person the human nature was so entirely subordinated to the Divine, that the human passions and affections never moved unless influenced and actuated by the Divine nature, and that here to show His sympathy, He "troubled Himself." Thus Rupertus remarks that "if He had not troubled Himself, no one else could have troubled Him." I confess that I regard this view with a little suspicion. It seems to me to imply that our Lord's human nature was not like ours, and that His humanity was like an instrument played upon by His divinity, but in itself dead and passive until its music was called out. To my mind there is something dangerous in this. I prefer to think that our Lord as man had all the feelings, passions, and affections of a man, but all under such perfect control that they never exceeded as ours do, and were never even very demonstrative, excepting on great occasions. As Beza says, there was no "disorder" in His emotions. Here I think He saw an occasion for exhibiting a very deep degree of sorrow and sympathy, partly from the sorrowful sight He beheld, and partly from His love to Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. Therefore, He greatly disturbed and "troubled Himself." It still admits of a question whether the phrase may not be simply a Hebraism for "He was troubled." (Compare 1 Samuel 30:6, and 2 Samuel 12:18.) Hammond says it is a Hebrew idiom. When all has been said, we must not forget that the phrase touches a very delicate and mysterious subject: that subject is the precise nature of the union of two natures in our Lord's Person. That He was at the same time perfect God and perfect Man, is an article of the Christian faith; but how far the Divine nature acted on the human, and to what extent it checked and influenced the action of human passions and feelings, are very deep points, which we have no line completely to fathom. After all, not the least part of our difficulty is that we can form no clear and adequate conception of a human nature entirely without sin. One thing, at any rate, is abundantly clear from this passage: there is nothing wrong or wicked in being greatly moved by the sight of sorrow, so long as we keep our feelings under control. To be always cold, unfeeling, and unsympathizing, may appear to some very dignified and philosophical. But though it may suit a Stoic, it is not consistent with the character of a Christian. Sympathy is not sinful, but Christ-like. Theophylact observes that Christ "teaches us by His own example the due measure of joy and grief. The absence altogether of sympathy and sorrow is brutal: the excess of them is womanly." Melancthon observes that none of Christ's miracles seem to have been done without some great mental emotion. (Luke 8:46.) He supposes that here at this verse, there was a great conflict with Satan in our Lord's mind, and that He wrestled in prayer for the raising of Lazarus, and then thanked God afterwards that the prayer was heard. Calvin takes much the same view. Ecolampadius observes that we must not think Christ had a human body only, and not a human soul. He had a soul like our own in all things, sin only excepted, and capable of all our feelings and emotions. Piscator and Trapp compare the trouble of spirit which our Lord went through, to the disturbance and agitation of perfectly clear water in a perfectly clear glass vessel. However great the agitation, the water remains clear. Musculus reverently remarks that after all there is something about this "groaning in spirit and troubling Himself," which cannot be fully explained. v34.—[And said, Where have ye laid him?] We cannot suppose that our Lord, who knew all things, even to the moment of Lazarus' death, could really need to be informed where Lazarus was buried. He asks what He does here partly as a kind friend to show His deep sympathy and interest in the grave of His friend, and partly to give further proof that there was no collusion in the matter of Lazarus' burial, and that He had nothing to do with the choice of his tomb, in order to concert an imposture about raising him. In short, those who heard Him publicly ask this question, would see that this was no pre-arranged and pre-contrived miracle. Quesnel remarks, "Christ does not ask out of ignorance, any more than God did when He said, "Adam, where art thou?" [They said...Lord, come and see.] Who they were that said this, we do not exactly know. It was probably the common saying of all the party of mourners who stood around while Jesus talked with Mary. They did not know why our Lord wished to see the grave. They may possibly have supposed that He wished to accompany Mary and Martha, and to weep at the grave. At any rate the question and answer secured a large attendance of companions, as the disciples and our Lord went to the place where Lazarus was buried. v35.—[Jesus wept.] This wonderful little verse has given rise to an enormous amount of comment. The difficulty is to select thoughts, and not to overload the subject. The Greek word rendered "wept" is not the same as that used for "weeping" in John 11:33, but totally different. There the weeping is a weeping accompanied by demonstrative lamentation. Here the word would be more literally and accurately rendered "shed tears." In fact it is the only place in the New Testament where this word for "weep" is used. There are three occasions where our Lord is recorded to have wept, in the Gospels: once when He beheld the city (Luke 19:41), once in the garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39, and Hebrews 6:7), and here. We never read of His laughing, and only once of His rejoicing. (Luke 10:21.) The reasons assigned by commentators why our Lord wept here, before He raised Lazarus, are various and curious. (a) Some think that He wept to see the ravages made by death and sin. (b) Some, as Hilary, think that He wept to think of the unbelief of the Jews. (c) Some think that He wept to see how weak and feeble was the faith of Mary and Martha. (d) Some, as Jerome and Ferus, think that He wept at the thought of the sorrow Lazarus would go through by returning to a sinful world. (e) Some think that He wept out of sympathy with the affliction of His friends at Bethany, in order to give an eternal proof to His church that He can feel with us and for us. I believe this last opinion is the true one. We learn the great practical lesson from this verse, that there is nothing unworthy of a Christian in tears. There is nothing unmanly, dishonorable, unwise, or feeble, in being full of sympathy with the afflicted, and ready to weep with them that weep. Indeed, it is curious to gather up the many instances we have in Scripture of great men weeping. We may draw great comfort from the thought that the Savior in whom we are bid to trust is one who can weep, and is as able to feel as He is able to save. We may learn the reality of our Lord's humanity very strongly from this little verse. He was one who could hunger, thirst, sleep, eat, drink, speak, walk, groan, be wearied, wonder, feel indignant, rejoice, like any of ourselves, and yet without sin; and above all, He could weep. I read that there is "joy in the presence of the angels of God" (Luke 15:10), but I never read of angels weeping. Tears are peculiar to flesh and blood. Chrysostom remarks that "John, who enters into higher statements about our Lord's nature than any of the evangelists, also descends lower than any in describing His bodily affections." v36.—[Then said...Jews...Behold...loved him.] This sentence is the expression partly of surprise, which comes out in the word "behold;" and partly of admiration,— What a loving and tender-hearted Teacher this is! It gives the idea that those who said this were the few unprejudiced Jews who had come to Bethany to comfort Mary and Martha, and afterward believed when they saw Lazarus raised. Let us observe that of all graces, love is the one which most arrests the attention and influences the opinion of the world. v37.—[And some of them said, etc.] This sentence sounds to me like the language of enemies determined to believe nothing good of our Lord, and prepared to pick a hole or find a fault if possible, in anything that He did. Does not a sarcastic sneer ring throughout it? "Could not this Man, if He really did open the eyes of that blind person at Jerusalem last autumn, have prevented this friend of His from dying? If He really is the Messiah and the Christ, and really does work such wonderful works, why has He not prevented all this sorrow? If He really loved Lazarus and his sisters, why did He not prove His love by keeping him back from the grave? Is it not plain that He is not Almighty? He cannot do everything. He could open the eyes of a blind man, but He could not prevent death carrying off His friend. If He was able to prevent Lazarus dying, why did He not do it? If He was not able, it is clear there are some things He cannot do." We should note that "the blind" is a word in the singular number. It is evidently the blind man at Jerusalem whose case is referred to. Let us note that nothing will convince, satisfy, or silence some wicked men. Even when Christ is before them, they are caviling, and doubting, and finding fault. What right have Christ's ministers to be surprised if they meet with the same treatment. Musculus remarks on the Satanic malice which this sentence displays. It is the old skeptical spirit of caviling and questioning. Unbelief is always saying, Why, and why, and why? "If this Man was such a friend of Lazarus, and loved him so much, why did He let him die?" These verses record one of the greatest miracles the Lord Jesus Christ ever worked, and supply an unanswerable proof of His divinity. He whose voice could bring back from the grave one that had been four days dead, must indeed have been very God! The miracle itself is described in such simple language that no human comment can throw light upon it. But the sayings of our Lord on this occasion are peculiarly interesting, and demand special notice. We should mark, first, our Lord's words about the stone which lay upon the grave of Lazarus. We read that He said to those around Him, when he came to the place of burial, "Take ye away the stone." Now why did our Lord say this? It was doubtless as easy for Him to command the stone to roll away untouched, as to call a dead body from the tomb. But such was not His mode of proceeding. Here, as in other cases, He chose to give man something to do. Here, as elsewhere, He taught the great lesson that His almighty power was not meant to destroy man's responsibility. Even when He was ready and willing to raise the dead, He would not have man stand by altogether idle. Let us treasure up this in our memories. It involves a point of great importance. In doing spiritual good to others,—in training up our children for heaven,—in following after holiness in our own daily walk,—in all these things it is undoubtedly true that we are weak and helpless. "Without Christ we can do nothing." But still we must remember that Christ expects us to do what we can. "Take ye away the stone," is the daily command which He gives us. Let us beware that we do not stand still in idleness, under the pretense of humility. Let us daily try to do what we can, and in the trying, Christ will meet us and grant His blessing. We should mark, secondly, the words which our Lord addressed to Martha, when she objected to the stone being removed from the grave. The faith of this holy woman completely broke down, when the cave where her beloved brother lay was about to be thrown open. She could not believe that it was of any use. "Lord," she cries, "by this time he stinketh." And then comes in the solemn reproof of our Lord: "Said I not unto thee, that if thou wouldst believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?" That sentence is rich in meaning. It is far from unlikely that it contains a reference to the message which had been sent to Martha and Mary, when their brother first fell sick. It may be meant to remind Martha that her Master had sent her word, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God." But it is perhaps more likely that our Lord desired to recall to Martha's mind the old lesson He had taught her all through His ministry, the duty of always believing. It is as though He said, "Martha, Martha, thou art forgetting the great doctrine of faith, which I have ever taught thee. Believe, and all will be well. Fear not: only believe." The lesson is one which we can never know too well. How apt our faith is to break down in time of trial! How easy it is to talk of faith in the days of health and prosperity, and how hard to practice it in the days of darkness, when neither sun, moon, nor stars appear! Let us lay to heart what our Lord says in this place. Let us pray for such stores of inward faith, that when our turn comes to suffer, we may suffer patiently and believe all is well. The Christian who has ceased to say, "I must see, and then I will believe," and has learned to say, "I believe, and by and by I shall see," has reached a high degree in the school of Christ. We should mark, thirdly, the words which our Lord addressed to God the Father, when the stone was taken from the grave. We read that He said, "Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard Me. And I knew that Thou hearest Me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me." This wonderful language is totally unlike anything said by Prophets or Apostles, when they worked miracles. In fact, it is not prayer, but praise. It evidently implies a constant mysterious communion going on between Jesus and His Father in heaven, which it is past the power of man either to explain or conceive. We need not doubt that here, as elsewhere in John, our Lord meant to teach the Jews the entire and complete unity there was between Him and His Father, in all that He did, as well as in all that He taught. Once more He would remind them that he did not come among them as a mere Prophet, but as the Messiah, who was sent by the Father, and who was one with the Father. Once more He would have them know that as the words which He spake were the very words which the Father gave Him to speak, so the works which He wrought were the very works which the Father gave Him to do. In short, He was the promised Messiah, whom the Father always hears, because He and the Father are One. Deep and high as this truth is, it is for the peace of our souls to believe it thoroughly, and to grasp it tightly. Let it be a settled principle of our religion, that the Savior in whom we trust is nothing less than eternal God, One whom the Father hears always, One who in very deed is God's Fellow. A clear view of the dignity of our Mediator's Person, is one secret of inward comfort. Happy is he who can say, "I know whom I have believed, and that He is able to keep that which I have committed to Him." (2 Timothy 1:12.) We should mark, lastly, the words which our Lord addressed to Lazarus when he raised him from the grave. We read that "He cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth." At the sound of that voice, the king of terrors at once yielded up his lawful captive, and the insatiable grave gave up its prey. At once, "He that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes." The greatness of this miracle cannot possibly be exaggerated. The mind of man can scarcely take in the vastness of the work that was done. Here, in open day, and before many hostile witnesses, a man, four days dead, was restored to life in a moment. Here was public proof that our Lord had absolute power over the material world! A corpse already corrupt, was made alive!—Here was public proof that our Lord had absolute power over the world of spirits! A soul that had left its earthly tenement was called back from Paradise, and joined once more to its owner's body. Well may the Church of Christ maintain that He who could work such works was "over all, God blessed for ever." (Romans 9:5.) Let us turn from the whole passage with thoughts of comfort and consolation. Comfortable is the thought that the loving Savior of sinners, on whose mercy our souls entirely depend, is one who has all power in heaven and earth, and is mighty to save.—Comfortable is the thought that there is no sinner too far gone in sin for Christ to raise and convert. He that stood by the grave of Lazarus can say to the vilest of men, "Come forth: loose him, and let him go."—Comfortable, not least, is the thought that when we ourselves lie down in the grave, we may lie down in the full assurance that we shall rise again. The voice that called Lazarus forth will one day pierce our tombs, and bid soul and body come together. "The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (1 Corinthians 15:52.) ================== Notes— v38.—[Jesus...groaning...cometh...grave.] The word rendered "groaning" is the same that was used at John 11:33, and the same remarks apply to it. The only difference is that here it is "groaning in Himself," and there "groaning in the spirit." This, however, confirms my impression that in the former verse "in the spirit" simply means "inwardly and spiritually," and that the general idea is "under the influence of very strong inward emotion." The situation of the grave, we need not doubt, was outside the village of Bethany. There was no such thing as interment within a town allowed among the Jews, or indeed among ancient nations generally. The practice of burying the dead among the living is a barbarous modern innovation, reflecting little credit on Christians. Calvin remarks, "Christ approaches the sepulchre as a champion preparing for a contest; and we need not wonder that He groans, as the violent tyranny of death, which He had to conquer, is placed before His eyes." Ecolampadius and Musculus think that the unbelieving, sneering remark of the Jews in the preceding verse, is the reason why our Lord "again groaned." Bullinger thinks that the renewed emotion of our Lord was simply occasioned by the sight of the grave. [It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.] Graves among the Jews seem to have been of three kinds. (1) Sometimes, but rarely, they were holes dug down into the ground, like our own. (See Luke 11:44.) (2) Most frequently they were caves hewn horizontally into the side of a rock, with a stone placed against the mouth. This was most probably the kind of new tomb in which our Lord was laid. (3) Sometimes they were caves in which there was a sloping, downward descent. This appears to have been the description of grave in which Lazarus was buried. It says distinctly that "a stone lay upon it." No doubt these particulars are specified to supply incidental proof of the reality of Lazarus' death and burial. v39.—[Jesus said, Take ye away the stone.] The expression here conveys the idea of "lifting up" to take away. It is the same word that is rendered "lifted up" in John 11:41. The use of this word greatly strengthens the idea that the grave was a descending cave, and not a horizontal one. When our Lord rose again, the stone was "rolled away from the door," and not lifted up. (Matthew 28:2.) By calling on the crowd of attendants to take away the stone, our Lord effected two things. Firstly, He impressed on the minds of all engaged the reality and truth of the miracle He was about to perform. Every one who lent a hand to lift the huge stone and remove it, would remember it, and become a witness. He would be able to say, "I myself helped to lift up the stone. I myself am sure there was no imposture. There was a dead body inside the grave." In fact, we cannot doubt that the smell rising from the bottom of the cave would tell anyone who helped to lift the stone what there was there.— Secondly, our Lord teaches us the simple lesson that He would have man do what he can. Man cannot raise the soul, and give life, but he can often remove the stone. Flacius points out the likeness between this command and the command at Cana to fill the water pots with water. (John 2:7.) That the stones placed at the mouth of graves in Palestine were very large, and not easily moved, we may see from Mark 16:3. [Martha, the sister of him, etc., etc.] This is a remarkable sentence, and teaches several important things. (a) It certifies, for the last time, the reality of Lazarus' death. He was not in a swoon or a trance. His own sister, who had doubtless seen him die, and closed his eyes, declares before the crowd of lookers on, that Lazarus had been dead four days, and was fast going to corruption. This we may well believe in such a climate as that of Palestine. (b) It proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no imposture, no collusion, no concerted deception, arranged between the family of Bethany and our Lord. Here is the sister of Lazarus actually questioning the propriety of our Lord's order, and publicly saying in effect that it is no use to move the stone, that nothing can now be done to deliver her brother from the power of death. Like the eleven Apostles, after Jesus Himself rose, Martha was not a willing and prepared witness, but a resisting and unwilling one. (c) It teaches, not least, how much unbelief there is in a believer's heart at the bottom. Here is holy Martha, with all her faith in our Lord's Messiahship, shrinking and breaking down at this most critical point. She cannot believe that there is any use in removing the stone. She suggests, impulsively and anxiously, her doubt whether our Lord remembers how long her brother has been dead. It is not for nothing that we are specially told it was "Martha, the sister of him that was dead," who said this. If even she could say this, and raise objections, the idea of imposture and deception becomes absurd. Some writers object to putting the full literal meaning on the Greek word rendered "stinketh." But I can see nothing in the objection. We need not suppose that the body of Lazarus was different to other bodies. Moreover, it was just as easy for our Lord to raise a corpse four days dead, as one only four hours dead. In either case, the grand difficulty to be overcome would be the same: viz., to change death into life. Indeed it is worth considering whether this fact about Lazarus is not specially mentioned in order to show our Lord's power to restore man's corrupt and decayed body at the last day, and to make it a glorious body. Let us note here what a humbling lesson death teaches. So terrible and painful is the corruption of a body, when the breath leaves it, that even those who love us most are glad to bury us out of sight. (Genesis 23:4.) Musculus suggests that Martha had so little idea what our Lord was going to do, that she supposed He only wanted to see Lazarus' face once more. This is perhaps going too far. The Greek for "dead four days" is a singular expression, and one that cannot be literally rendered in English. It would be "He is a person of four days;" and it may possibly mean, "He has been buried four days." Raphelius gives examples from Herodotus and Xenophon, which make it possible that it means either dead or buried. Lightfoot mentioned a very curious tradition of the Jews: "They say after death the spirit hovers about the sepulchre, waiting to see if it may return to the body. But when it sees the look of the face of the corpse changed, then it hovers no more, but leaves the body to itself." He also adds, "They do not certify of the dead, except within three days after decease, for after three days the countenance changes." v40.—[Jesus saith, Said I not, etc.] This gentle but firm reproof is remarkable. It is not clear to what our Lord refers in the words, "Said I not." (a) Some think, as Rupertus, that He refers to the message He sent at the beginning: "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God." (b) Some think that He refers to the conversation He had with Martha when she first met Him outside Bethany. (c) Some think that He refers to words He had often used in discoursing with Martha and Mary, on former occasions. The point is one which must be left open, as we have no means of settling it. My own impression is that there is probably a reference to the message which our Lord sent back to the sisters at first, when Lazarus was sick. I fancy there must have been something more said at that time which is not recorded, and that our Lord reminded Martha of this. At the same time I cannot doubt that our Lord constantly taught the family of Bethany, and all His disciples, that believing is the grand secret of seeing God's glorious works.— "If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth." "He did not many mighty works because of their unbelief." (Mark 9:23; Matthew 13:58.) Unbelief, in a certain sense, seems to tie the hands and limit the power of omnipotence. Let us note that even the best believers need reminding of Christ's sayings, and are apt to forget them. "Said I not unto thee." It is a little sentence we should often call to mind. v41.—[Then they took away...stone...laid.] Martha's interruption seems to me to have caused a little pause in the proceedings. She being the nearest relative of Lazarus, and having probably arranged everything concerning his burial, and provided his tomb, we may well believe that her speech made the bystanders hesitate to move the stone. When, however, they heard our Lord's solemn reply, and observed that she was silenced, and made no further objection, "then" they proceeded to do what our Lord desired. Hall remarks, "They that laid their hands to the stone doubtless held still awhile, when Martha spoke, and looked one while on Christ, another while on Martha, to hear what issue of resolution would follow so important an objection." [And Jesus lifted up His eyes, and said.] We now reach a point of thrilling and breathless interest. The stone had been removed from the mouth of the cave. Our Lord stands before the open grave, and the crowd stands around, awaiting anxiously to see what would happen next. Nothing appears from the tomb. There is no sign of life at present: but while all are eagerly looking and listening, our Lord addressed His Father in heaven in a most solemn manner, lifting up His eyes, and speaking audibly to Him in the hearing of all the crowd. The reason He explains in the next verse. Now, for the last time, about to work His mightiest miracle, He once more makes a public declaration that He did nothing separate from His Father in heaven, and that in this and all His works there is a mysterious and intimate union between Himself and the Father. We should note how He suits the action to the word. "He lifted up His eyes." (Compare John 17:1.) He showed that He was addressing an unseen Father in heaven. [Father, I thank thee that Thou hast heard Me.] This is a remarkable expression. Our Lord begins with "thanks," when man would have expected Him to offer prayer. How shall we explain it? (a) Some think that our Lord refers to prayer He had put up to the Father concerning the death of Lazarus, from the moment that He heard of his illness, and to His present firm conviction that those prayers had been heard, and were going to receive a public answer. (b) Others think that there is no reason to suppose that our Lord refers to any former or remote prayer; that there was a constant, hourly, minutely communication between Himself and His heavenly Father; and that to pray, and return thanks for the answer to prayer, were actions which in His experience were very closely connected. The subject is a deep and mysterious one, and I shrink from giving a very positive opinion about it. That our Lord constantly prayed on all occasions, we know from the Gospels. That He prayed sometimes with great agony of mind and with tears, we also know. (Hebrews 5:7.) But how far He could know anything of that peculiar struggle which we poor sinners have to carry on with doubt, fear, and anxiety, in our prayers, is another question altogether, and very hard to answer. One might suppose that One who was as man, entirely holy, humble, and without sin, might be able to thank for prayer heard, almost as soon as prayer was offered. Upon this theory the sentence before us would be plain: "I pray that Lazarus may be raised; and I thank Thee at the same time for hearing my prayer, as I know Thou dost." And yet we must not forget two of our Lord's prayers not granted, apparently: "Father, save Me from this hour;"—"Father, let this cup pass from Me." (John 12:27, and Mark 26:29.) It is however only fair to say that the first of these prayers is greatly qualified by the context, and the second by the words, "If it be possible." We may note here as elsewhere, what an example of thankfulness, as well as prayerfulness, our Lord always supplies. Well if it was followed! His people are always more ready to ask than to thank. The more grace in a heart the more humility, and the more humility the more praise. Chrysostom remarks, "Who now ever prayed in this manner? Before uttering any prayer, He saith, 'I thank Thee;' showing that He needed not prayer." He also says that the real cause of our Lord saying this was to show the Jews He was no enemy of God, but did all His works according to His will. Origen observes, "If to those who pray worthily is given the promise in Isaiah, 'Thou shalt cry, and He shall say, Here I am,' what answer think we could our Lord receive? He was about to pray for the resurrection of Lazarus. He was heard by the Father before He prayed; His request was granted before it was made; and, therefore, He begins with thanks." Musculus, Flacius, and Glassius, think that our Lord refers to prayer He had been putting up secretly when He was "groaning in spirit and troubled," and that He was then wrestling and agonizing in prayer, though those around Him knew it not. We may remember that at the Red Sea we are not told of any audible prayer Moses offered, and the the Lord says, "Wherefore criest thou unto Me?" (Exodus 14:15.) Quesnel observes, "Christ being about to conclude His public life and preaching by the last and most illustrious of His miracles, returns solemn thanks to His Father for the power given to His human nature to prove the authority of His mission by miracles." Hall observes, "Words express our hearts to men, thoughts to God. Well didst Thou know, Lord, out of the self-sameness of Thy will with the Father's, that if Thou didst but think in Thy heart that Lazarus should rise, he was now raised. It was not for Thee to pray vocally and audibly, lest those captious hearers should say, Thou didst all by entreaty, and nothing by power." v42.—[And I knew that Thou hearest, etc.] This verse is so elliptical that the meaning can hardly be seen without a paraphrase. "I do not give Thee these thanks as if I had ever doubted Thy willingness to hear Me; on the contrary, I know well that Thou always hearest Me.— Thou dost not only hear all my prayers as Man, both for myself and my people; Thou dost also ever hear Me, even as I hear Thee, from the mystical union there is between the Father and the Son.— But I have now said this publicly, for the benefit of this crowd of people standing by the grave, in order that they may see and believe for the last time that I do no miracle without Thee, and that I am the Messiah whom Thou hast sent into the world. I would have them publicly hear Me declare that I work this last great work as Thy Sent One, and as a last evidence that I am the Christ." I cannot but think that there is a deep meaning about the expression, "Thou hearest Me alway." (Compare John 5:30.) But I admit the difficulty of the phrase, and would speak with diffidence. It is impossible to imagine a more thorough open challenge to the attention of the Jews, than the language which preceded the raising of Lazarus. Before doing this stupendous work, our Lord proclaims that He is doing and speaking as He does, to supply a proof that the Father sent and commissioned Him as the Christ. Was He the "Sent One" or not? This, we must always remember, was the great question, of which He undertook to give proof. The Jews, moreover, said that He did His miracles by Beelzebub: let them hear that He did all by the power of God. Bullinger remarks that our Lord seems to say, "The Jews do not all understand that union and communion between Me and Thee, by which we are of the same will, power, and substance. Some of them even think that I work by the power of the devil. Therefore that all may believe that I come from Thee, am sent by Thee, am Thy Son, equal to Thee, light of light, very God of very God, I use expressions of this sort." Poole remarks, "There is a great difference between God's hearing of Christ and hearing us. Christ and His Father have one essence, one nature, and one will." The following miracles were wrought by Christ without audible prayer, and with only an authoritative word, Matthew 8:3; Matthew 9:6; Mark 5:41; Mark 9:25; Luke 7:14. Wordsworth observes, "Christ prayed to show that He was not against God, nor God against Him, and that what He did was done with God's approval." v43.—[And when...cried...come forth.] In this verse we have the last and crowning stage of the miracle. Attention was concentrated on the grave and our Lord. The crowd looked on with breathless expectation; and then, while they looked, having secured their attention, our Lord bids Lazarus come forth out of the grave. The Greek word for "He cried," is only in this place applied to any voice or utterance of our Lord. In Matthew 12:19, it is used, where it is said of our Lord, "He shall not cry." Here it is evident that He purposely used a very loud and piercing cry, that all around might hear and take notice. Theophylact thinks that Jesus "cried aloud to contradict the Gentile fable that the soul remained in the tomb with the body. Therefore the soul of Lazarus is called to as if it were absent, and a loud voice were necessary to summon it back." Euthymius suggests the same reason. This however seems an odd idea. On the other hand, Brentius, Grotius, and Lampe, suggest that Jesus "cried with a loud voice," to prevent the Jews from saying that He muttered or whispered some magical form, or words of enchantment, as witches did. Ferus observes that our Lord did not say, "In the name of my Father, come forth," or "Raise Him, O my Father," but acts by His own authority. v44.—[And he that was dead came forth.] The effect of our Lord's words was seen at once. As soon as He "cried," Lazarus was seen coming up out of the cave, before the eyes of the crowd. A more plain, distinct, and unmistakable miracle it would be impossible for man to imagine. That a dead man should hear a voice, obey it, rise up, and move forth from his grave alive, is utterly contrary to nature. God alone could cause such a thing. What first began life in him, how lungs and heart began to act again, suddenly and instantaneously, it would be a waste of time to speculate. It was a miracle, and there we must leave it. The idea of some, that Lazarus moved out of the grave without the use of his legs, passing through air like a spirit or ghost, seems to me needless and unreasonable. I agree with Hutcheson, Hall, and Pearce, that though "bound hand and foot," there is no certain proof that his legs were tied together so tightly that he could not move out of the grave, though slowly and with difficulty, like one encumbered, on his own feet. The tardy shuffling action of such a figure would strike all. Pearce remarks, "He must have come forth crawling on his knees." We are surely not required to multiply miracles.— Yet the idea that Lazarus came out with a supernatural motion seems to be held by Augustine, Zwingle, Ecolampadius, Bucer, Gualter, Toletus, Jansenius, Lampe, Lightfoot, and Alford, who think it part of the miracle. I would not press my opinion positively on others, though I firmly maintain it. My own private feeling is that the slow, gradual, tottering movements of a figure encumbered by grave-clothes would impress a crowd far more than the rapid ghost-like gliding out in air of a body, of which the feet did not move. [And his face bound about...napkin.] This is mentioned to show that he had been really dead, and his corpse treated like all other corpses. If not dead, he would have been unable to breathe through the napkin for four days. [Jesus saith...Loose him...let him go.] This command was given for two reasons: partly that many around might touch Lazarus, and see for themselves that it was not a ghost, but a real body that was raised; partly that he might be able to walk to his own house before the eyes of the multitude, as a living man. This, until he was freed from grave-clothes and his eyes were unbandaged, would have been impossible. Very striking is it to remark how in the least minute particulars the objections of infidels and skeptics are quietly forestalled and met in Gospel narrative! Thus Chrysostom remarks that the command to "loose him" would enable the friends who bore Lazarus to the grave, to know from the grave clothes that it was the very person they had buried four days before. They would recognize the clothes: they could not say, as some had said in the case of the blind man, "This is not he." He also remarks that both hands, eyes, ears, and nostrils would all convince the witnesses of the truth of the miracle. v45.—[Then many of the Jews...believed on him.] This verse describes the good effect which the raising of Lazarus had on many of the Jews who had come from Jerusalem to comfort Mary and Martha. Their remaining prejudices gave way. They were unable to resist the extraordinary evidence of the miracle they had just seen. From that day they no longer denied that Jesus was the Christ. Whether their belief was faith unto salvation may well be doubted: but at any rate they ceased to oppose and blaspheme. And it is more than probable that on the day of Pentecost many of those very Jews whose hearts had been prepared by the miracle of Bethany, came boldly forward and were baptized. We should observe in this verse what a signal blessing God was pleased to bestow on sympathy and kindness. If the Jews had not come to comfort Mary under her affliction, they would not have seen the mighty miracle of raising Lazarus, and perhaps would not have been saved. Lampe remarks on these Jews, "They had come as the merciful, and they obtained mercy." Besner observes the beautiful delicacy with which John draws a veil over the effect on Martha and Mary of this miracle, while he dwells on the effect it had on strangers. v46.—[But some of them went...Pharisees, etc.] We see in this verse the bad effect which the raising of Lazarus had on some who saw it. Instead of being softened and convinced, they were hardened and enraged. They were vexed to see even more unanswerable proofs that Jesus was the Christ, and irritated to feel that their own unbelief was more than ever inexcusable. They therefore hurried off to the Pharisees to report what they had seen, and to point out the progress that our Lord was making in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem. The amazing wickedness of human nature is strikingly illustrated in this verse. There is no greater mistake than to suppose that seeing miracles will necessarily convert souls. Here is a plain proof that it does not. Never was there a more remarkable confirmation of our Lord's words in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: "If they believe not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." Musculus observes what a wonderful example we have here of the sovereign grace of God, choosing some, and leading them to repentance and faith, and not choosing others. Here is the same miracle, seen under the same circumstances, and with the same evidence, by a large crowd of persons: yet while some believe, others believe not! It is like the case of the two thieves on the cross, both seeing the same sight, one repenting and the other impenitent. The same fire which melts wax hardens clay. In leaving this wonderful miracle, there are three things which demand special notice. (a) We should observe that we are not told of anything that Lazarus said about his state while in the grave, and nothing of his after-history. Tradition says that he lived for thirty years after, and was never known to smile: but this is probably a mere apocryphal invention. As to his silence, we can easily see there is a Divine wisdom about it. If Paul "could not utter" the things that he saw in the third heaven, and called them "unspeakable things," it is not strange that Lazarus should say nothing of what he saw in Paradise. (2 Corinthians 12:4.) But there may be always seen in Scripture a striking silence about the feelings of men and women who have been the subjects of remarkable Divine interposition. God's ways are not man's ways. Man loves sensation and excitement, and likes to make God's work on his fellow creatures a gazing-stock and a show, to their great damage. God almost always seems to withdraw them from the public, both for their own good and His glory. (b) We should observe that we are told nothing of the feelings of Martha and Mary, after they saw their brother raised to life. The veil is drawn over their joy, though it was not over their sorrow. Affliction is a more profitable study than rejoicing. (c) We should observe, lastly, that the raising of Lazarus is one of the most signal instances in the Gospels of Christ's Divine power. To Him who could work such a miracle nothing is impossible. He can raise from the death of sin any dead soul, however far gone and corrupt. He will raise us from the grave at His own second appearing. The voice which called Lazarus from the tomb is almighty. "The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and they that hear shall live." (John 5:25.) These concluding verses of the eleventh chapter of John, contain a melancholy picture of human nature. As we turn away from Jesus Christ and the grave at Bethany, and look at Jerusalem and the rulers of the Jews, we may well say, "Lord, what is man?" We should observe, for one thing, in these verses, the desperate wickedness of man's natural heart. A mighty miracle was wrought within an easy walk of Jerusalem. A man four days dead was raised to life, in the sight of many witnesses. The fact was unmistakable, and could not be denied; and yet the chief priests and Pharisees would not believe that He who did this miracle, ought to be received as the Messiah. In the face of overwhelming evidence they shut their eyes, and refused to be convinced. "This man," they admitted, "does many miracles." But so far from yielding to this testimony, they only plunged into further wickedness, and "took counsel to put Him to death." Great, indeed, is the power of unbelief! Let us beware of supposing that miracles alone have any power to convert men's souls, and to make them Christians. The idea is a complete delusion. To fancy, as some do, that if they saw something wonderful done before their eyes in confirmation of the Gospel, they would at once cast off all indecision and serve Christ, is a mere idle dream. It is the grace of the Spirit in our hearts, and not miracles, that our souls require. The Jews of our Lord's day are a standing proof to mankind that men may see signs and wonders, and yet remain hard as stone. It is a deep and true saying, "If men believe not Moses and the Prophets, neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:31.) We must never wonder if we see abounding unbelief in our own times, and around our own homes. It may seem at first inexplicable to us, how men cannot see the truth which seems so clear to ourselves, and do not receive the Gospel which appears so worthy of acceptation. But the plain truth is, that man's unbelief is a far more deeply-seated disease than it is generally reckoned. It is proof against the logic of facts, against reasoning, against argument, against moral suasion. Nothing can melt it down but the grace of God. If we ourselves believe, we can never be too thankful. But we must never count it a strange thing, if we see many just as hardened and unbelieving as the Jews. We should observe, for another thing, the blind ignorance with which God's enemies often act and reason. These rulers of the Jews said to one another, "If we let this Christ alone, we shall be ruined. If we do not stop His course, and make an end of His miracles, the Romans will interfere, and make an end of our nation." Never, the event afterward proved, was there a more short-sighted and erring judgment than this. They rushed madly on the path they had chosen, and the very thing they feared came to pass. They did not leave our Lord alone, but crucified and slew Him. And what happened then? After a few years, the very calamity they had dreaded took place: the Roman armies did come, destroyed Jerusalem, burned the temple, and carried away the whole nation into captivity. The well-read Christian need hardly be reminded of many such like things in the history of Christ's Church. The Roman Emperors persecuted the Christians in the first three centuries, and thought it a positive duty not to let them alone. But the more they persecuted them, the more they increased. The blood of the martyrs became the seed of the Church.—The English Papists, in the days of Queen Mary, persecuted the Protestants, and thought that truth was in danger if they were let alone. But the more they burned our forefathers, the more they confirmed men's minds in steadfast attachment to the doctrines of the Reformation.—In short, the words of the second Psalm are continually verified in this world: "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD." But "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision." (Psalms 2:4.) God can make the designs of His enemies work together for the good of His people, and cause the wrath of man to praise Him. In days of trouble, and rebuke, and blasphemy, believers may rest patiently in the Lord. The very things that at one time seem likely to hurt them, shall prove in the end to be for their gain. We should observe, lastly, what importance bad men sometimes attach to outward ceremonial, while their hearts are full of sin. We are told that many Jews "went up out of the country to Jerusalem, before the Passover, to purify themselves." The most of them, it may be feared, neither knew nor cared anything about inward purity of heart. They made much ado about the washings, and fasting, and ascetic observances, which formed the essence of popular Jewish religion in our Lord's time; and yet they were willing in a very few days to shed innocent blood. Strange as it may appear, these very sticklers for outward sanctification were found ready to do the will of the Pharisees, and to put their own Messiah to a violent death. Extremes like this meeting together in the same person, are unhappily far from uncommon. Experience shows that a bad conscience will often try to satisfy itself by a show of zeal for the cause of religion, while the "weightier matters" of the faith are entirely neglected. The very same man who is ready to compass sea and land to attain ceremonial purity, is often the very man, who, if he had fit opportunity, would not shrink from helping to crucify Christ. Startling as these assertions may seem, they are abundantly borne out by plain facts. The cities where Lent is kept at this day with the most extravagant strictness, are the very cities where the carnival before Lent is a season of glaring excess and immorality. The people in some parts of Christendom, who make much ado one week about fasting and priestly absolution, are the very people who another week will think nothing of murder! These things are simple realities. The hideous inconsistency of the Jewish formalists in our Lord's time has never been without a long succession of followers. Let us settle it firmly in our minds that a religion which expends itself in zeal for outward formalities, is utterly worthless in God's sight. The purity that God desires to see is not the purity of bodily washing and fasting, of holy water and self-imposed asceticism, but purity of heart. Will-worship and ceremonialism may "satisfy the flesh," but they do not tend to promote real godliness. The standard of Christ's kingdom must be sought in the sermon on the mount: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." (Matthew 5:8; Colossians 2:23.) ================== Notes— v47.—[Then gathered...priests...Pharisees...council.] This council was probably the great Sanhedrim, or consultative assembly of the Jewish Church. It was for purely ecclesiastical, and not for civil or political purposes. It is the same assembly before which, it is conjectured with much show of reason, our Lord made His defense, in the fifth chapter of this gospel. On receiving the tidings of the astounding miracle which had been wrought at Bethany, our Lord's bitterest enemies, the chief priests and Pharisees, seem to have been alarmed and enraged, and to have felt the absolute necessity of taking decided measures to check our Lord's progress. Ecclesiastical rulers, unhappily, are often the foremost enemies of the Gospel. [And said, what do we?] This question indicates perplexity and irritation. "What are we about? Are we going to sit still, and let this new Teacher carry all before Him? What is the use of trifling with this new heresy? We are doing nothing effectual to check it. It grows: and we let it alone." [For this man doeth many miracles.] This is a marvelous admission. Even our Lord's worst enemies confess that our Lord did miracles, and many miracles. Can we doubt that they would have denied the truth of His miracles, if they could? But they do not seem to have attempted it. They were too many, too public, and too thoroughly witnessed, for them to dare to deny them. How, in the face of this fact, modern infidels and skeptics can talk of our Lord's miracles as being impostures and delusions, they would do well to explain! If the Pharisees who lived in our Lord's time, and who moved heaven and earth to oppose His progress, never dared to dispute the fact that He worked miracles, it is useless to begin denying His miracles now, after eighteen centuries have passed away. Let us note the desperate hardness and wickedness of man's heart. Even the sight of miracles will not convert any one, without the renewing grace of the Holy Ghost. Brentius remarks that the simple answer to the question of this verse ought to have been, "Our duty is to believe at once that this worker of many miracles is the Christ of God." v48.—[If we let Him thus alone.] This means, "If we continue to treat Him as we do now, and take no more active measures to put Him down; if we only dispute, and reason, and argue, and cavil, and denounce Him, but let Him have His liberty, let Him go where He pleases, let Him do what He pleases, and preach what He pleases." "Thus" can only mean "as at present, and hitherto." [All men will believe on Him.] This means the bulk of the population will believe that He is what He professes to be,— the promised Messiah. The number of His adherents will increase, and faith in His Messiahship will become contagious, and spread all over Palestine. The word "all," in this sentence, must evidently not be taken literally. It only means "the great mass of the people." It is like "all men come unto Him," said by the angry disciples of John the Baptist about Christ. (John 3:26.) When men lose their tempers, and talk in passion, they are very apt to use exaggerated expressions. [The Romans come...take away our place...nation.] The process of reasoning by which the Pharisees arrived at this conclusion, was probably something of this kind. "This man, if let alone, will gather round Him a crowd of adherents, who will proclaim Him a Leader and King. This our governors, the Romans, will hear and consider it a rebellion against their authority. Then they will send an army, deal with us as rebels, destroy Jerusalem and the temple, and carry away the whole Jewish nation, as the Babylonians did, into captivity." In this wretched argument it is difficult to say which appears most prominent, ignorance or unbelief. It was an ignorant argument. The Pharisees ought to have known well that nothing was further from our Lord's teaching than the idea of an earthly kingdom, supported by an armed force. He always proclaimed that His kingdom was not of this world, and not temporal, like Solomon's or David's. He had never hinted at any deliverance from Roman authority. He distinctly taught men to render to Cæsar the things that were Cæsar's, and had distinctly refused, when appealed to, to be "a Judge or divider" among the Jews. Such a person, therefore, was not the least likely to excite the jealousy of the Romans. It was an unbelieving argument. The Pharisees ought to have believed that the Romans could never have conquered and put down our Lord and His adherents, if He really was the Messiah, and could work miracles at His will. The Philistines could not overcome David, and the Romans could not have overcome David's greater Son. By their own showing, the Jewish nation would have had protection enough in the miracle-working power of our Lord. That there was an exception throughout the East, at the time of our Lord's ministry, that some remarkable person was about to arise, and become a great leader, is mentioned by Roman historians. But there is no evidence that the Roman Government ever showed jealousy of anyone who was merely a religious teacher, like our Lord, and did not interfere with the civil power. The plain truth is, that this saying of the Pharisees looks like an excuse, caught up as a weapon against our Lord, and a pretext for stirring up enmity against Him. What they really hated was our Lord's doctrine, which exposed their own system, and weakened their authority. They felt that "their craft was in danger." But not daring to say this publicly, they pretended a fear that He would excite the jealousy of the Romans, and endanger the whole nation. They did just the same when they finally accused Him to Pilate, as One that stirred up sedition, and made Himself a King. It is no uncommon thing for wicked people to assign very untrue reasons for their conduct, and to keep back and conceal their true motives. Demetrius, and his friends at Ephesus, said that the temple of the great goddess Diana was in danger, when in reality it was their own "craft" and their own "wealth." The Jews at Thessalonica who persecuted Paul, pretended great zeal for "the decrees of Cæsar," when their real motive was hatred of Christ's Gospel. The Pharisees here pretended fear of the Romans, when in reality they found the growing influence of Jesus pulling down their own power over the people. Calvin observes, "They double their wickedness by a plausible disguise,— their zeal for the public good. The fear that chiefly distressed them was, that their own tyranny should be destroyed: but they pretend to be anxious about the temple and worship of God." Bucer compares the Pharisees' pretended fear of the Romans to the absurd fears of the consequence of printing and literature, which the Papists used to express at the period of the Reformation. Flacius remarks, that "through fear of Cæsar, God is despised and His Son crucified, and this under pretext of preserving religion, the temple, and the nation. Human wisdom preserves itself by appeasing man and offending God!" Ferus remarks that the council entirely forgot that "Rulers, whether the Romans or any others, are not a terror to good works, but to evil. If the Jews had believed and obeyed God, they had nothing to fear." That the leading Jews at Jerusalem had a strong suspicion that Jesus really was the Messiah, in spite of all their outrageous enmity and unbelief, is evident not only from comparison of other places, but from their nervous anxiety to get rid of Him. They knew that Daniel's seventy weeks were run out. They could not deny the miracles that Jesus did. But they dared not follow out their convictions, and draw the conclusion they ought to have drawn. They willingly shut their eyes against light. How miserably mistaken the policy of the Pharisees proved to be, it is needless to say. If they had let Jesus alone, and allowed His Gospel to be received and believed, Jerusalem, humanly speaking, might have stood to this day, and the Jews might have been more mighty and prosperous than in the days of Solomon. By not letting Jesus alone, and by killing Him, they filled up the measure of their nation's sin, and brought destruction on the temple, and scattering on the whole people. "Take away," applied to "our place" here, must mean "destroy."* Thus Matthew 24:39— "The flood took them all away." *[This sentence read somewhat obscurely in the book, because the word PLACE did not have quotation marks around it; these have been added, and also the word "our" (from the Text) has been included to help it read better. The original sentence reads thus: "Take away," applied to place here, must mean "destroy."] Some, as Heinsius and Bloomfield, think that "our place" means the city, Jerusalem. Some, as Olshausen and Alford, think that "our place" means "our country." Others, as Maldonatus, Hutcheson, Poole, and Hammond, with whom I entirely agree, think "our place" means the temple. (Compare Acts 6:13-14.) Lampe thinks this view is proved by Micah 1:3. Calvin observes how many people in his day were always hanging back from helping the Protestant Reformation, from the very same motives as these Jews,— the fear of consequences. "We must consult public tranquility. There are dangers in the way." v49.—[And one of them, named Caiaphas.] This man, by comparing Acts 5:17, would seem to have been of the sect of the Sadducees. We also know that he was son-in-law to Annas, of whom Josephus specially mentions that he was a Sadducee. If this view be correct (and Guyse, Gill, Scott, and Lampe agree with me in it), it rather accounts for the contemptuous way in which he seems to speak in replying here to the saying of the Pharisees. It is remarkable, however, to observe how Pharisees and Sadducees, who disagreed on so many points, were agreed in hating and opposing Christ. Formalists and skeptics, in all ages, make common cause against the Gospel. [Being...high priest...same year.] This expression shows the disorder and irregularity which prevailed in the Jewish Church in our Lord's time. According to the law of Moses, the office of high priest was tenable for life. In the last days of the Jews, the office seems to have been obtainable by election, and to have been held with great variety of term. Caiaphas was high priest when John the Baptist began his ministry, and Annas with him. (Luke 3:2.) He was also high priest after the Day of Pentecost, and before the persecution of Stephen. No wonder Paul says, on a subsequent occasion, of Ananias, "I did not know that he was the high priest." (Acts 23:5.) Poole remarks, "After Herod's time there was no regard to the family of Aaron, but the Romans made what high priests they pleased. Josephus tells us that the Jews had thirteen high priests from Aaron to Solomon, which was 612 years; eighteen from Solomon to the Babylonian captivity, which was 460 years; fifteen from the captivity to Antiochus, which was 414 years; but they had no less than twenty-eight between the time that Herod began to reign and Jerusalem was destroyed, which was less than a century." [Said...Ye know nothing at all.] The word rendered "ye" is here emphatic in the Greek. It seems not unlikely that it expresses Caiaphas' contempt for the ignorance and helplessness of the Pharisees' question. "You and all your party do not understand what the situation of things requires. You are wasting time in complaints and expressions of vexation, when a sterner, severer policy is imperatively demanded." Chrysostom remarks, "What others made matter of doubt, and put forth in the way of deliberation, this man cried aloud shamelessly, openly, and audaciously. One must die." Pearce thinks that some of the Jews in council must have talked of only putting a stop to Christ's preaching, as they afterwards tried to stop the Apostles (Acts 4:18), but that Caiaphas ridiculed such weak counsel, and advised more violent measures. May we not suppose that Nicodemus and others spoke in favor of our Lord? v50.—[Nor consider.] The word thus rendered is almost always translated "reason," and is nowhere "consider," except here. It seems to imply that Caiaphas wished the Pharisees to know that they had not reasoned out and properly weighed the right thing to be done. Hence this perplexity. He would now show them the conclusion they ought to have come to. [It is expedient...one...die...whole...perish not.] Caiaphas' conclusion is short and decisive. He gives it elliptically. "This Man must die. It is far better that one should die, whether innocent or not, for the benefit of the whole nation, than that the whole nation should be brought into trouble and perish. You are thinking that if we do not let this Man alone, and interfere, we are injuring an innocent person. Away with such childish scruples. Let Him be put out of the way. It is expedient to kill Him. Better He should die to save the nation from further trouble, than live, and the nation be brought into trouble by Him." I cannot suppose that Caiaphas meant anything more than this. He simply argues that Christ's death would be a public benefit, and that to spare Him might bring destruction on the nation. Of the full meaning that His words were capable of bearing, I do not believe he had the least idea. Let us carefully note here what crimes and sins may be committed on the ground of expediency. None are so likely to be tempted to commit such sins as rulers and governors. None are so likely to do things unjust, dishonest, and oppressive, as a Government under the pressure of the spurious argument that it is "expedient" that the few should suffer, rather than the many should take harm. For political expediency Christ was crucified. What a fact that is! Ought we not rather to ask always what is just, what is right, what is honorable in the sight of God? That which is morally wrong can never be politically right. To govern only for the sake of pleasing and benefiting the majority, without any reference to the eternal principles of justice, right, and mercy, may be expedient, and please man; but it does not please God. Calvin observes, "Let us learn never to separate what is useful and expedient from what is lawful, since we ought not to expect any prosperity and success but from the blessing of God." Ecolampadius remarks that we must never do evil that good may come. "If you could, by the slaying of one good man, work the saving of many, it would be unlawful. Poole observes, "Never was anything spoken more diabolically. Like a wretched politician, concerned for nothing but the people's safety, Caiaphas saith not 'it is lawful,' but 'it is expedient' for us that one Man, be He never so good, never so innocent and just, should die." Doddridge remarks, "When will the politicians of this world learn to trust God in His own ways, rather than to trust themselves and their own wisdom, in violation of all rules of truth, honor, and conscience?" v51, v52—[And this spake he not of himself, etc.] These two verses contain a parenthetical comment by John, on the address of Caiaphas to the Pharisees. It is a peculiar passage, and not without difficulty. That a man like Caiaphas should be said to prophesy, and that his prophecy should be of so wide and extensive a character, is undoubtedly strange. I offer a few remarks that may help throw light on the passage. That God can employ a wicked man to declare prophetical truth, is clearly proved by the case of Balaam. But the positions of Balaam and Caiaphas were very different. That the Jewish high priest at any time possessed, by virtue of his office, the power of predicting things to come, I can nowhere find. David certainly speaks of Zadok as "a seer." (2 Samuel 15:27.) The high priest's ephod conveyed a certain mysterious power to the wearer, of foreseeing things immediately near. (1 Samuel 23:9.) The "urim and thummin," whatever they were, which dwelt in the breastplate of the high priest, appear to have given the wearer peculiar powers of discernment. But even they were withdrawn at the destruction of the first temple. In short, there is an utter absence of proof that a Jewish high priest, in the time of our Lord, had any power of prophesying. I believe that the verses before us are very elliptical, and require much to be supplied in order to convey the meaning of John. The only satisfactory sense I can put upon the passage will be found in the following free paraphrase. [This spake he not of himself.] He spoke these words, though he was not aware of it, under the influence of an overruling power, making him say things of far deeper meaning than he was conscious of himself. As Ecolampadius says, "God used him as an instrument." (See Isaiah 10:15.) [But being high priest that year, he prophesied.] He spoke words which as the event showed afterwards, were eminently prophetical; and the fact that they fell from his lips when he was high priest, made them more remarkable, when afterward remembered and noted. [That Jesus should die for that nation.] He actually foretold, though the fulfillment was in a manner very different from his intentions, that Jesus would die for the benefit of the Jewish nation. [And not for that nation only, etc.] And He also foretold what was practically fulfilled afterwards, though in a way marvelously unlike what he thought,— that Jesus would not only die for the Jewish nation, but for the benefit of all God's children at present scattered all over the world. The utmost, in fact, that I can make of John's explanatory comment, is that he remarks on the extraordinary manner in which Caiaphas' words proved true, though in a way that he never intended, wished, or expected. He lets fall a saying on a great public occasion, which comes from his lips with great authority, on account of his office as high priest. That saying was afterwards fulfilled in the most marvelous manner by the overruling providence of God, but in a way that the speaker never dreamed of. The thing was afterwards remembered and remarked on; and it seemed, says John, as if being high priest that year, he was miraculously compelled by the Holy Ghost to prophesy the redemption of mankind, at the very time that he thought he was only speaking of putting Christ to death. Caiaphas in short meant nothing but to advise the murder of Christ. But the Holy Ghost obliged him unconsciously to use words which were a most remarkable prediction of Christ's death bringing life to a lost world. The Greek word rendered "should die," would be more literally, "was about to die." It simply expresses a future coming event. The "children of God scattered abroad," I believe, means the elect of God among the Gentiles. They are put in contrast with "that nation," or "the nation," as it would be more literally rendered. The "gathering together in one," I believe to be that final gathering of all Christ's members which is yet to come at His second advent. (See Ephesians 1:10; John 12:32; Genesis 49:10.) Lightfoot says, the Jews thought the greatest work of Messiah was to be the "reduction, or gathering together of the captivities." I leave the passage with a very deep sense of its difficulty, and desire not to press my views on others dogmatically, if they are not satisfied with them. Chrysostom remarks, "Caiaphas prophesied, not knowing what he said; and the grace of God merely made use of his mouth, but touched not his accursed heart." Musculus and Ferus remark how striking the resemblance is between Caiaphas unintentionally using language fulfilled in a sense totally unlike what he meant, and the Jews saying of Christ to Pilate, "His blood be on us and on our children." They little knew the awful and tremendous extent of the saying. The absurdity of the Roman Catholic claim, that the Pope's words and decrees are to be received as partially inspired because of his office, on the ground of this passage, is noted and exposed by all the Protestant commentators of the seventeenth century. Lightfoot thinks we should lay great emphasis on the expression, "that same year," and justly so.— He observes that it was the very year when the high priest's office ended, the veil was rent, and the Jewish dispensation wound up, and the Mosaic priesthood abrogated by Christ's becoming manifestly our Priest.— He thinks Paul, in Acts 23:5, "I wist not that he was the high priest," may have meant "that he did not know there was any high priest at all."— He also observes that this very year at Pentecost, the Holy Ghost was poured out as the spirit of prophecy and revelation in an extraordinary measure. What wonder if "that year" the last high priest, like Balaam, should prophesy. v53.—[Then from that day...counsel...death.] We see here the result of Caiaphas' counsel. His stern, bold, outspoken proposal carried all the council with him, and even if Gamaliel, Nicodemus, and Joseph were there, their voices were silenced. From that very day it became a settled thing with the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem, that Jesus was to be put to death. The only difficulty was to find the way, the time, and the means of doing it, without creating a tumult. The great miracle just wrought at Bethany would doubtless increase the number of our Lord's adherents, and make it necessary to use caution in carrying out the murderous plan. The conclusions of great Ecclesiastical Councils are seldom wise and good, and sometimes are wicked and cruel. Bold, forward, unscrupulous men, like Caiaphas, generally silence the quieter members, and carry all before them. v54.—[Jesus therefore walked...Jews.] From this time our Lord found it necessary to give up appearing openly at Jerusalem, and came there no more till the week of his crucifixion. He knew the result of the Council just held, either from His own Divine knowledge, or from the information of friends like Nicodemus; and as His time was not fully come, he retired from Judæa for a season. The expression "no more," is literally "not yet." It must mean "no more at present." May we not learn from our Lord's conduct, that it may be a duty sometimes not to court danger or death? There are seasons when it is a duty to retire, as well as seasons for going forward. There are times to be silent, as well as times to speak. Hutcheson remarks, "It is lawful for Christ's servants to flee when their death is decreed by enemies, and the persecution is personal." [Went thence...wilderness...Ephraim...disciples.] Nothing whatever is known for certain of the distinct locality to which our Lord retired, or of the city here named. It seems, purposely, to have been a quiet, isolated, and little frequented place. The probability is that it was beyond Jordan, in Perea, because when our Lord came to Jerusalem the last time He passed through Jericho. Ellicott suggests that Ephraim was a town also called Ophrah, about twenty miles north of Jerusalem, on the borders of Samaria. He also thinks that on leaving Ephraim those words of Luke (Luke 17:11) come in, which say, that our Lord "passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee." After that he thinks He went through Perea, to Jericho. But I am not satisfied that he proves these points. It is worth noticing that our Lord chose a scene of entire quiet and seclusion as His last abode, before going up to His last great season of suffering at the crucifixion. It is well to get alone and be still, before we take in hand any great work for God. Our Savior was not above this. How much more should His disciples remember it! In saying this, I would not be thought to commend the ostentatious "retreats" of the Romish Church and its followers. It is of the very essence of Christian retirement, if it is to be profitable, that it should be without parade, and should not attract the notice of men. The life of the Eremite has no warrant in Scripture. When it says that our Lord continued or tarried at Ephraim "with His disciples," it is worth noticing that we do not hear a word of any public works that he did there. It looks as if He devoted the last few quiet days that remained before His crucifixion, to uninterrupted communion with the Father, and private instruction of His disciples. v55.—[And...Jews' passover...nigh at hand.] This expression, like many others in John's Gospel, shows that he wrote for the Church generally, and for many readers who were not familiar with Jewish feasts and customs. [And many went...country...before...passover.] This seems mentioned as a simple matter of custom among the Jews, and not as a thing done this year more than any other. They always did so; and thus drew together, for seven days before the passover, a larger collection of people at Jerusalem than at any other time of the year. Hence the crowds and expectation when our Lord appeared. He had been talked of by people from all parts of Palestine. [To purify themselves.] This refers to the ceremonial washings, purifications, and atonements for ceremonial uncleanness, which all strict Jews were careful to go through before eating the passover. (See 2 Chronicles 30:18-19.) It is impossible to read the book of Leviticus carefully, and not to be struck with the almost endless number of ways in which an Israelite could become ceremonially unclean, and need going to the priest to have an atonement made. (See Numbers 9:6-11.) That the Pharisees, in such matters, added to legal strictness by their absurd scrupulosity, such as "straining at a gnat," as if the dead body of such an insect could defile them, we cannot doubt: but the simple law as it stood was a yoke that was very hard to bear. No wonder that thousands of devout Jews came anxiously before the passover to Jerusalem, to be made ceremonially clean and fit for the feast. It is worth noting how singularly particular men are sometimes about forms and ceremonies and outward correctness, while they coolly plan and execute enormous crimes. The Jews, zealous about "purifying" themselves while they were planning the murder of Christ, have had imitators and followers in every age of the Church. Strictness about forms and ceremonies, and utter recklessness about gross sin, are found quite compatible in many hearts. v56.—[Then sought they...Jesus, and spake, etc., etc.] The persons here mentioned seem to me to have been the Jews from all parts of Palestine, mentioned in the last verse, who had come up to prepare for the passover. The fame and history of our Lord were probably so great throughout Palestine, that one of the first inquiries the comers would make of one another would be about Him. And as they stood in the temple court, waiting for their turn to go through ceremonial purification, or talking with old friends and acquaintances who had come up, like themselves, from the country, Jesus would probably be a principal topic of conversation. [What think ye...that...not come...feast?] This is mentioned as one of the principal inquiries made by the Jews of one another. Our Lord, on a former occasion, had not come up to the passover. (See John 6:1-71.) They might, therefore, naturally feel doubtful whether He would come now. It is noteworthy that the question admits of being taken as one, or divided into two distinct ones. Some think that it means, "What think ye of the question, whether He will come to the feast or not?" Others hold that it means, "What think ye of Christ, and especially of His position at this time? Do you think that He will not come to the feast?" I myself prefer this view. It is noteworthy that the very question with which our Lord confounded the Pharisees a few days after, as recorded in Matthew 22:42, begins with precisely the same Greek words as those here used, "What think ye of Christ?" v57.—[Now both...priests...Pharisees, etc., etc.] This verse shows the first steps which had been taken after the session of the Council which adopted the advice of Caiaphas to kill Jesus. A general order had been given that if any man knew where Jesus lodged in Jerusalem, he was to give information, in order that He might be apprehended. I cannot help thinking myself that this order must only have referred to Jerusalem, and the house where our Lord might lodge when He came to the passover, if He did come. I cannot suppose that our Lord's enemies could be ignorant where He was between the miracle of Bethany and the passover. But I fancy they dared not run the risk of a tumult or rebellion, which might be caused if they sent into the rural districts to apprehend Him. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the jurisdiction of the priests and Pharisees extended beyond the walls of Jerusalem, and whether they could lay hands upon our Lord anywhere outside the city. This may have been the reason why He often lodged at Bethany. Musculus here discusses the question, whether obedience to the powers that be, obliges us to give up a man to those who are seeking to apprehend him. He answers, "Decidedly not; if we believe him to be an innocent man." The chapter we have now begun, finishes a most important division of John's Gospel. Our Lord's public addresses to the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem are here brought to an end. After this chapter, John records nothing but what was said in private to the disciples. We see, for one thing, in this passage, what abounding proofs exist of the truth of our Lord's greatest miracles. We read of a supper at Bethany, where Lazarus "sat at the table" among the guests,—Lazarus, who had been publicly raised from the dead, after lying four days in the grave. No one could pretend to say that his resurrection was a mere optical delusion, and that the eyes of the bystanders must have been deceived by a ghost or vision. Here was the very same Lazarus, after several weeks, sitting among his fellow-men with a real material body, and eating and drinking real material food. It is hard to understand what stronger evidence of a fact could be supplied. He that is not convinced by such evidence as this may as well say that he is determined to believe nothing at all. It is a comfortable thought, that the very same proofs which exist about the resurrection of Lazarus, are the proofs which surround that still mightier fact, the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Was Lazarus seen for several weeks by the people of Bethany, going in and coming out among them? So was the Lord Jesus seen by His disciples.—Did Lazarus take material food before the eyes of his friends? So did the Lord Jesus eat and drink before His ascension.—No one in his sober senses, who saw Jesus take "broiled fish and a honeycomb," and eat it before several witnesses, would doubt that He had a real body. (Luke 24:42.) We shall do well to remember this. In an age of abounding unbelief and scepticism, we shall find that the resurrection of Christ will bear any weight that we can lay upon it. Just as He placed beyond reasonable doubt the rising again of a beloved disciple within two miles of Jerusalem, so in a very few weeks He placed beyond doubt His own victory over the grave. If we believe that Lazarus rose again, we need not doubt that Jesus rose again also. If we believe that Jesus rose again, we need not doubt the truth of His Messiahship, the reality of His acceptance as our Mediator, and the certainty of our own resurrection. Christ has risen indeed, and wicked men may well tremble. Christ has risen from the dead, and believers may well rejoice. We see, for another thing, in this passage, what unkindness and discouragement Christ's friends sometimes meet with from man. We read that at the supper in Bethany, Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anointed the feet of Jesus with precious ointment, and wiped them with the hair of her head. Nor was this ointment poured on with a niggardly hand. She did it so liberally and profusely that "the house was filled with the odor of the ointment." She did it under the influence of a heart full of love and gratitude. She thought nothing too great and good to bestow on such a Savior. Sitting at His feet in days gone by, and hearing His words, she had found peace for her conscience, and pardon for her sins. At this very moment she saw Lazarus alive and well, sitting by her Master's side,—her own brother Lazarus, whom He had brought back to her from the grave. Greatly loved, she thought she could not show too much love in return. Having freely received, she freely gave. But there were some present who found fault with Mary's conduct, and blamed her as guilty of wasteful extravagance. One especially, an apostle, a man of whom better things might have been expected, declared openly that the ointment would have been better employed if it had been sold, and the price "given to the poor." The heart which could conceive such thoughts must have had low views of the dignity of Christ's person, and still lower views of our obligations to Him. A cold heart and a stingy hand will generally go together. There are only too many professing Christians of a like spirit, in the present day. Myriads of baptized people cannot understand zeal of any sort for the honor of Christ. Tell them of any vast outlay of money to push trade or to advance the cause of science, and they approve of it as right and wise. Tell them of any expense incurred for the preaching of the Gospel at home or abroad, for spreading God's Word, for extending the knowledge of Christ on earth, and they tell you plainly that they think it "waste." They never give a farthing to such objects as these, and count those people fools who do. Worst of all, they often cover over their own backwardness to help purely Christian objects, by a pretended concern for the poor at home. Yet they find it convenient to forget the notorious fact that those who do most for the cause of Christ, are precisely those who do most for the poor. We must never allow ourselves to be moved from "patient continuance in well-doing," by the unkind remarks of such persons. It is vain to expect a man to do much for Christ, when he has no sense of debt to Christ. We must pity the blindness of our unkind critics, and work on. He who pleaded the cause of loving Mary, and said, "Let her alone," is sitting at the right hand of God, and keeps a book of remembrance. A day is soon coming when a wondering world will see that every cup of cold water given for Christ's sake, as well as every box of precious ointment, was recorded in heaven, and has its rewards. In that great day those who thought that anyone could give too much to Christ, will find they had better never have been born. We see, lastly, in this passage, what desperate hardness and unbelief there is in the heart of man. Unbelief appears in the chief priests, who "consulted that they might put Lazarus to death." They could not deny the fact of his having been raised again. Living, and moving, and eating, and drinking within two miles of Jerusalem, after lying four days in the grave, Lazarus was a witness to the truth of Christ's Messiahship, whom they could not possibly answer or put to silence. Yet these proud men would not give way. They would rather commit a murder than throw down the arms of rebellion, and confess themselves in the wrong. No wonder that the Lord Jesus in a certain place "marveled" at unbelief. Well might He say, in a well-known parable, "If they believe not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." (Mark 6:6; Luke 16:31.) Hardness especially appears in Judas Iscariot, who, after being a chosen Apostle and a preacher of the kingdom of heaven, turns out at last a thief and a traitor. So long as the world stands, this unhappy man will be a lasting proof of the depth of human corruption. That anyone could follow Christ as a disciple for three years, see all His miracles, hear all His teaching, receive at His hand repeated kindnesses, be counted an Apostle, and yet prove rotten at heart in the end, all this at first sight appears incredible and impossible! Yet the case of Judas shows plainly that the thing can be. Few things, perhaps, are so little realized as the extent of what desperate hardness and unbelief there is in the heart of man. Let us thank God if we know anything of faith, and can say, with all our sense of weakness and infirmity, "I believe." Let us pray that our faith may be real, true, genuine, and sincere, and not a mere temporary impression, like the morning cloud and the early dew. Not least, let us watch and pray against the love of the world. It ruined one who basked in the full sunshine of privileges, and heard Christ Himself teaching every day. Then "let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." (1 Corinthians 10:12.) ================== Notes— v1.—[Then Jesus six days...passover...Bethany.] Every intelligent reader of the Gospel will see that John purposely omits at this point certain events which are recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He passes at once from our Lord's retirement to the city called Ephraim to His return to Bethany for the last time. In this interval will be found the things related in Matthew 20:17-34; Mark 10:32-52; Luke 18:31 to Luke 19:1-28. In whatever part of Palestine this city Ephraim was, it is almost certain that between it and Bethany Jesus passed through Jericho, healed two blind men there, converted the publican Zacchæus, and spoke the parable of the nobleman who went into a far country, after giving to his ten servants ten pounds. Why John did not record these facts we do not know, and it is mere waste of time to inquire. A reverent mind will be content to remember that John wrote by inspiration of God, and was guided by infallible direction, both as to what he recorded and what he did not record. Reason and common sense, moreover, tell us that if the four Evangelists had all narrated exactly the same things, their value as independent witnesses would have been greatly damaged. Their variations and diversities are a strong indirect proof of their credibility. Too close an agreement would raise a suspicion of collusion, and look like an attempt to deceive. The expression, "six days before the passover," is remarkable, because at first sight it seems to contradict Mark's narrative of the anointing, which Mark expressly says was "two days before the passover." (Mark 14:1.) Hence some maintain that the Greek words should be translated, "before the six days of the passover feast," leaving the precise day indefinite and uncertain. To this, however, it is reasonably objected that the passover feast was more than six days, and that the proposed translation is not a probable rendering of the Greek words.— To this I must add, that in my opinion there seems no necessity for departing from the English version. It is not only possible, but probable, as Lightfoot maintains, that there were two distinct anointings of our Lord, one six days before the passover, and the other two days before. [The reader is requested to refer back to the notes on John 11:2, where he will find this point fully discussed.] The passover was slain on the Thursday evening. At this rate our Lord must have arrived at Bethany on Friday, the afternoon or evening before the Sabbath. Thus he must have spent His last earthly Sabbath with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, at Bethany. That the disciples must have journeyed to Bethany with a full impression that a great crisis was at hand, and the end of their Master's ministry approaching, one can hardly doubt, after reading the plain warnings recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But whether they really thought their Master would be put to death, or whether they did not secretly expect He would soon manifest His Divine power, take His kingdom and reign, is more than questionable. A more deliberate, voluntary, calm walking up to death than our Lord's last journey into Judæa, it is impossible to conceive. [Where Lazarus...been dead...raised from the dead.] These words seem to show that Lazarus lived at Bethany, and was not merely a visitor or lodger there. They also show the immense importance of the miracle wrought on him. Within two miles of Jerusalem and the temple, there lived for weeks, if not months, a man well known to many Jews, who had been actually raised from his grave after being four days buried. He had not been raised only, and then had disappeared from public notice, but he lived where he was raised. Lightfoot draws out the following interesting scheme of our Lord's disposal of time during the last six days before His crucifixion:— (1) On Saturday He supped with Lazarus. (2) On Sunday He rode into Jerusalem publicly on an ass. This was the day when the Jews used to take out a lamb from the flock, for each family, and to keep it separate for the passover. On this day the Lamb of God publicly presented Himself in Zion. (3) On Monday He went to Jerusalem again, and cursed the barren fig-tree on the way. (4) On Tuesday He went again to Jerusalem, and spoke for the last time to the people. Returning, He sat on the Mount of Olives and delivered the famous prophecy of Mat 24:1-51; Matthew 25:1-46, and supped that night with Simon the leper. (5) On Wednesday He tarried in Bethany. (6) On Thursday He went to Jerusalem, ate the passover, appointed the Lord's Supper, and the same night was taken before the priests as a prisoner. (7) On Friday He was crucified. v2.—[There they made him a supper.] These words show the joyful hospitality with which the Master was received by the disciples. The expression, "they," may perhaps be used indefinitely, according to a common Hebraism. (Compare Matthew 5:15, Matthew 10:10, Matthew 13:48, and John 15:6.) It then simply means, "a supper was made." If not so used, it evidently can apply to none but Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.— Whether the supper was on Friday evening, when our Lord arrived, after the Sabbath began, or on the Saturday, or the Sabbath Day, is immaterial. It is evident that hospitality was thought no breach of the Sabbath among the Jews. Lightfoot says the feast of the Jews, on this particular day, six days before the passover, was always peculiarly liberal and sumptuous. Hutcheson observes, "It is not unlawful at some times to enjoy the liberal use of the creatures in a sober manner. Christ does not decline this supper; sometimes He went to the feasts of Pharisees, and sometimes of Publicans." (Luke 7:36; Matthew 9:11.) [And Martha served.] The natural temperament of this good woman comes out here as elsewhere. She could not sit still and do nothing while her Lord was in her house. She must be actively stirring and trying to do something. Grace does not take away our peculiar characteristics. [But Lazarus...sat at the table with him.] This appears to most commentators, from Chrysostom downwards, to be purposely mentioned, in order to show the reality of Lazarus' resurrection. He was not a ghost or a spirit. He had really been raised to life with a real body, and flesh and bones, and all the wants and conditions of a body. Thus we are practically taught that though a man's body dies, it may yet live again. Is not this feast a faint type of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb? Jesus Christ will be there; those believers who died and are raised again at His second advent will be there; and those who never died, but are found alive and believing when He comes, will be there. Then the number of guests will be complete. v3.—[Then took Mary...ointment...anointed...feet...Jesus, etc., etc.] This remarkable action of Mary, which according to our Lord's saying in Matthew and Mark, is related all over the world, deserves our special consideration. The action itself was not an uncommon one in Eastern countries, where the heat is very great, and where the feet exposed to it by wearing sandals are liable to suffer much from dryness and scorching. There was nothing, moreover, out of the common way in a woman doing this service. To "wash the saints' feet," Paul names among the good works of a Christian widow. (1 Timothy 5:10.) The motive of Mary, in doing what she did, was evidently strong and grateful love to her Lord and Savior. Not only from what she had learned from Him for her own spiritual benefit, but also for what He had done for her brother Lazarus, she felt there was nothing too great or too good to do for Him. Her feelings made her anxious to do her Master the highest honor, regardless of expense, and indifferent to any remark that witnesses might make. The extent of her gratitude is shown by the lavish profuseness with which she used the ointment on this occasion, although it was very costly. This seems indicated by her "wiping our Lord's feet with her hair," having poured on them so much ointment that they needed wiping; and also by the "house being filled with the odour of the ointment." She poured out so much ointment that the scent of it filled the whole apartment and the whole house where the guests were. Anyone who knows the powerful odor of otto of roses, in the present day, will easily understand this. What this "ointment of spikenard" was has puzzled the commentators in every age, as the Greek word throws no certain light on the question. Some think that it means "potable" ointment, that might be drunk; some that it means perfectly "pure" ointment, that might be trusted as genuine and unadulterated. Augustine thinks that the expression denotes the place from which the ointment came. The question is of no importance, and must be left unexplained for want of materials to explain it. Enough for us to know that it was something very valuable and costly. How costly an ointment might be, any one can guess who knows the value of pure otto of roses. I can only repeat the opinion already expressed, that this anointing was certainly not the anointing which is described in Luke 7:1-50.; and most probably was not the anointing of Mar 14:1-72. The anointing in Mark was two days before the passover, while this was six. In Mark the ointment was poured on the head, and here it was poured on the feet. In Matthew and Mark several "disciples" murmured, but here only Judas is named. These discrepancies, in my judgment, are insuperable, and make it necessary to believe that there were two distinct anointings at Bethany during the last six days preceding the crucifixion. I grant that it is a choice between difficulties, and that there are difficulties in the view I maintain. But I do not think them so weighty as those of the other view. At any rate, I am supported by the great authority of Chrysostom, Chemnitius, Lightfoot, Whitby, and Henry. What the significance of Mary's wiping our Lord's feet with the hairs of her head may be, is a difficult question. Perhaps, from our ignorance of Eastern customs in the days of our Lord's earthly ministry, we are hardly qualified to give an opinion about it now. On points like these, where we are ignorant, it is wisest not to conjecture. Calvin says, "The usual practice was to anoint the head, and on this account Pliny reckons it an instance of excessive luxury that some anointed the ankles. What John says about the feet amounts to this,— that the whole body of Christ, down to the feet, was anointed." Rollock observes that at this time Mary seems to have had a deeper and more intimate perception of what there was in Christ, and of the real dignity of His person, than any of His disciples. v4.—[Then said...Judas Iscariot, Simon's son.] We know nothing of this Simon, who he was, or why he is specially mentioned here. It is worth notice, that hardly any name occurs so frequently in the New Testament as this. We have the following:— 1. The Apostle Simon, called also Peter. 2. The Apostle Simon, called also Zelotes, and the Canaanite. 3. Simon the brother of our Lord, mentioned with James and Joses. (Matthew 13:55.) 4. Simon the leper, in whose house the anointing took place. (Matthew 26:6.) 5. Simon the Cyrenian, who carried the cross. (Matthew 27:32.) 6. Simon the Pharisee. (Luke 7:40.) 7. Simon the sorcerer at Samaria. (Acts 8:9.) 8. Simon the tanner. (Acts 9:43.) It would of course be interesting to know if Judas Iscariot was son of any of these. But we have no clue to guide us. Wordsworth sees in the mention of Judas by name a strong internal evidence of the late date of John's Gospel. Compare with this the fact that John alone mentions Peter and Malchus by name (John 18:10.) [Which should betray him.] These words would be more literally rendered, "the one who was about to betray Him." On the occasion of the anointing related in Matthew 26:1-75 and Mark 14:1-72, it is worth noticing, that "some of the disciples," and not Judas only, found fault with the action. It rather adds probability to the theory that there were two anointings at Bethany. Chrysostom remarks that Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas was a traitor, and rebuked him with such words as, "One of you is a devil." (John 6:64.) Augustine also remarks that we must not suppose Judas never fell till he received money from the Jews. He was false from the beginning. He also says that he was present at the institution of the Lord's Supper, and was a communicant. v5.—[Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence...poor?] This carping question is a specimen of the way in which wicked men often try to depreciate a good action, and specially in the matter of giving money. When the deed is done they do not say downright that it ought not to have been done, but suggest that something better might have been done! Those who do good must be prepared to find their actions carped at and their motives depreciated, and themselves charged with neglecting one class of duties in over-zeal for doing others. If we do nothing until everybody commends and praises us, we shall never do any good in the world. We may learn from this verse the costly nature of Mary's ointment. If workman's wages were "a penny a day" (Matthew 20:2), about 7½ d. of our money, this holy woman must have poured on our Lord's feet what was worth between £9 and £10 of our money, according to the estimate of Judas. But allowances must perhaps be made for an exaggerated statement being made by an envious and wicked man. We may note here that giving to the poor was evidently assumed to be a part of every Christian's duty. Compare this with Galatians 2:10. In a country like England, where there is a poor law, Christians are sadly apt to forget this. The duty of "giving to the poor," and not merely paying rates in obedience to law, is just as obligatory now as it was 1800 years ago. Ecolampadius remarks that the more wicked and graceless people are, the more ready they are to find fault with and blame others, and to see no beauty in what they do. Quesnel remarks, that Judas made a great ado about 300 pence (viz., £10) and a little ointment, when he was about to sell the Son of God for 30 pieces of silver: viz., £3 15s. Henry observes, "Coldness of love to Christ, and a secret contempt of serious piety, when they appear in professors of religion, are sad presages of final apostasy." Stier remarks, "We have in the words of Judas an example of those judgments which have their foundation in the favorite principles of utilitarianism, and which may too often be applied falsely, to the wounding of pious hearts."— "This lays bare the root of that suspicion with which Missionary offerings for the extension of Christ's kingdom are looked at, because of the poor whom we have at home."— "We have here, furthermore, an example of all cold judgments passed on the virtuous emotions of warm hearts, of all more or less conscious or unconscious censures of the artless outgoings and acts of honest feelings, and of all narrow-hearted criticism of others according to our own mind and temper." v6.—[This he said, not...cared for the poor.] This is one of those parenthetical explanations or glosses, which are so frequent in John's Gospel. The Evangelist tells us the true character of Judas, and the reason he said what he did. He did not really care about the poor, but put their interest forward as a special and plausible argument for depreciating Mary's action, and discouraging such actions in others. There is something very instructive in this. The argument of Judas is frequently reproduced in the present day. Hundreds of people excuse themselves from one class of duties by pretended zeal for others, and compensate for neglecting Christ's cause by affecting great concern for the poor. Yet in reality they care nothing for the poor, and only want to save their own money, and to be spared contributing to religious objects. Some, for instance, will never give money to benefit the souls of their fellow-countrymen, and tell us we must first relieve their poverty and feed their bodies.— Some again will give nothing to help Missions abroad, and tell us we must first mind the poor at home.— Even the shareholders of some great joint-stock companies have been known to express great concern for the poor and working classes, as an excuse for carrying on their business on Sundays.— The language of John about Judas Iscariot shows us that this apparent zeal for the poor should always be regarded with suspicion, and submitted to close analysis and cross-examination. He talked brave words about the poor, as if he cared more for them than anyone! Yet there is not the slightest proof in the Gospels that he cared more for them than others. Above all the conclusion of the verse lets out the truth, and the unerring pen of inspiration reveals the man's true motives. These things are written for our learning. There are few greater impostors in the world than some of those who are pretending perpetually to care about the poor. The truest and best friends of the working classes and the poor, the people who give most and do most for them, will always be found among those who do most for Christ. It is the successors of Mary of Bethany, and not of Judas Iscariot, who really "care for the poor." But they do not talk about it. While others talk and profess, they act. [But because he was a thief.] This is strong language, and a very heavy accusation. It seems to indicate that this was the habitual character of Judas. He always had been, and always was a dishonest man. So says an inspired Apostle. In the face of this expression, it appears to me impossible to prove that Judas ever had the grace of God at any time, and that he only fell away at last. He was inwardly wrong at heart all the way through. Again, I find it impossible to believe that Judas was a high-souled and noble-minded, though greatly erring, man, and that his motive in betraying his Lord was to hasten His kingdom, and to cut short the period of his humiliation. I cannot reconcile this with the word "thief." Let us note here how far a man may go in Christian profession without any inward grace. There is no evidence that Judas up to this time was unlike other Apostles. Like them he had seen all Christ's miracles, heard Christ's teaching, lived in Christ's company, and had himself preached the kingdom of God. Yet he was at bottom a graceless man. Privileges alone convert nobody. Ferus remarks, "Let us never put confidence in man, or in any sanctity of position, office, or dress. If apostleship did not make Judas a saint, neither will position, office, or dress make thee a saint. In fact, unless you first have inward holiness, and have sought it from God, it may be that your office may render you more wicked." Let us note the amazing power of the love of money. No besetting sin seems so thoroughly to wither up and blight and harden the heart. No wonder it is called "the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:10.) However many the faults and infirmities recorded of saints in the Bible, we have not a single example of one that was covetous. Chrysostom observes, "A dreadful thing is the love of money! It disables both eyes and ears, and makes men worse to deal with than a wild beast, allowing a man to consider neither conscience, nor friendship, nor fellowship, nor salvation." Quesnel observes that "Christ allows His money to be taken from Him, but never His sheep." [And had the bag.] The Greek word rendered "bag" is a curious one. The original idea is that of a bag in which musicians kept the mouthpieces or reeds of their instruments. From that, the idea evidently was attached to it of a bag carried about by any member of a company, such as that of the disciples, on behalf of his companions. Whether the common stock of provisions as well as of money was not kept in this bag, perhaps admits of a question. Theophylact says, that some think that Judas was trusted with the care of the money as one of the meanest and most inferior of Christian duties. Thus in Acts, the Apostles would not "serve tables." (Acts 6:2.) [And bare what was put therein.] The last words would be more literally rendered, "the things put therein." Some, as Origen, Theophylact, Pearce, Lampe, Tittman, Bloomfield, and Clarke, have thought that the word "bare" means "took away, carried off, stole, secreted, or set apart for himself."— I doubt this. I prefer the simple idea of "carrying about." It was the office of Judas to be the purse-keeper of the little company of disciples. The contributions in money and provisions of those friends who ministered to our Lord, such as "Joanna, Susanna, and many others" (Luke 8:3), were probably meant by the things here mentioned. It is clear that our Lord had no earthly wealth, nor His disciples. It is equally clear that His friends, scattered all over Palestine, must have thought it a privilege, whenever He came among them, to contribute to His maintenance and support. Of these contributions in all probability Judas was treasurer. Let professing Christians note that to have money passing through their hands, is a snare and a temptation. It is a snare by which many in every age have been cast down. v7.—[Then said Jesus, Let her alone.] This is unquestionably a rebuke to Judas, and a somewhat sharp one. It shows how jealously our Lord regards any attempt to hinder, check, or discourage the zeal of His own people. Even now, when some of His weak disciples undertake work which calls forth enmity and opposition, He can make all difficulties vanish, and say, "Let them alone." [Against the day...burying...kept this.] The first word here would be more literally rendered, "for" the day. I believe we must not interpret this sentence as if our Lord meant that Mary really knew that our Lord's burial was at hand. I think it rather signifies, "The ointment which Mary has poured on my feet, though she meant it only as a mark of honor, happens to be a most suitable thing, as my death and burial are approaching. She little knew, in doing what she did, the nearness of my death; but as it happens, her action is most seasonable." Some, as Chrysostom, think that our Lord intended to prick the conscience and soften the feelings of Judas by talking of His "burial," and by the language of the next verse, "Me ye have not always." It may possibly be so. But I rather think that in both instances He intended to direct the minds of all around Him, as He had evidently been doing for some weeks, to His approaching death and the conclusion of His ministry. He brings that conclusion in at every turn now. Some think that the word "kept" refers to the ointment having been originally got by Mary for her brother Lazarus, and that there had been a long hoarding up of it from the day when Lazarus died, and that Judas blamed Mary for having "kept" it so long, and not having sold it. But this is purely conjectural. May we not learn from our Lord's words here, that Christians do not always know the full meaning of what they do? God uses them as His instruments, without their being aware of it at the time. (Compare John 12:16.) Calvin says, "Those are absurd interpreters who infer from Christ's reply, that costly and magnificent worship is pleasing to God. He rather excuses Mary, on the ground of her having rendered an extraordinary service, which ought not to be regarded as a perpetual rule for the worship of God." v8.—[For the poor always...with you.] It is clear from these words that poverty will always exist; and we need not wonder. So long as human nature is what it is, some will always be rich and some poor, because some are diligent and some idle, some are strong and some weak, some are wise and some foolish. We need never dream that by any arrangement, either civil or ecclesiastical, poverty can ever be entirely prevented. The existence of pauperism is no proof whatever that states are ill governed, or that churches are not doing their duty. Ecolampadius thinks that our Lord here refers to the poor as being His members, and that there is a latent reference to the language of the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, about works of mercy being regarded as works done to Christ's brethren and to Christ Himself. (Matthew 25:40.) It is noteworthy that in this sentence Jesus passes from a singular verb to a plural one, and seems to address not Judas only, but all present. [But Me ye have not always.] These words show, for one thing, that our Lord's bodily presence on earth was a great and miraculous event, and as such deserved to be marked with peculiar honor; and for another thing, that His departure was at hand, so that the opportunities for doing Him honor were becoming very few. Moreover, if words mean anything, the sentence completely overthrows the whole theory of Christ' body being present under the forms of bread and wine, in the Lord's Supper. That favorite Romish doctrine can never be reconciled with "Me ye have not always." We may surely learn from this verse, that relieving the poor, however good a work, is not so important a work as doing honor to Christ. In times like these it is well to remember this. Not a few seem to think all religion consists in giving temporal help to the poor. Yet there are evidently occasions when the relief of the poor must not be allowed to supersede the direct work of honoring Christ. Doubtless it is well to feed, clothe, and nurse the poor; but it is never to be forgotten, that to glorify Christ among them is far better. Moreover, it is much easier to give temporal than spiritual help, for we have our reward in thanks, and gratitude, and the praise of man. To honor Christ is far harder, and gets us no praise at all. Augustine remarks, "In respect of the presence of His Majesty, we have Christ always; in respect to the presence of the flesh, it was rightly said, 'Me ye will not have always.' The Church had Him in respect of the flesh for a few days; but now by faith it holds, not with eyes beholds Him." Zwingle observes that this sentence "excludes Christ's corporal presence from the Lord's Supper. According to His Divine nature, Christ is always present with His people. According to His human nature, He is in one place in heaven, at the right hand of God." Most of the other reformers make the same comment. Rollock remarks, that our Lord's defense of Mary in this passage must not be alleged as a warrant for extravagant and profuse expenditure in the public worship of Christians. Jesus Himself points out that the occasion was extraordinary and singular: viz., on the eve almost of His burial,— an occasion which could only happen once. This seems to imply that on ordinary occasions such an expenditure as that of Mary would not have been justifiable. v9.—[Much people...knew...there.] We need not doubt that the news of our Lord's arrival at Bethany would soon spread, like lightning, partly because Bethany was so near Jerusalem, partly because of the recent miracle wrought there, partly because of the order of the rulers to give information where Christ was, partly because of the approach of the Passover, and the crowds assembling all around Jerusalem. [They came...not...Jesus' sake...see Lazarus...dead.] This sentence is a genuine exhibition of human nature. Curiosity is one of the most common and powerful motives in man. The love of seeing something sensational and out of the common way, is almost universal. When people could see at once both the subject of the miracle and Him that worked the miracle, we need not wonder that they resorted in crowds to Bethany. Yet within ten days a far greater miracle was to take place, viz., our Lord's own resurrection. v10.—[But the chief priests consulted.] It admits of doubt whether the word rendered "consulted" would not be better rendered "purposed" or "determined," as in Acts 15:37, Acts 27:39; 2 Corinthians 1:17. This is the view of Schleusner and Parkhurst. [That they might put Lazarus...death.] It is difficult to conceive a greater proof of hardened and incorrigible wickedness of heart than this sentence exhibits. The chief priests could not possibly deny the fact of Lazarus having been raised, or explain it away. He was a witness whose testimony against their unbelief was overwhelming. They must therefore stop his mouth by killing him. And these were the chief ecclesiastical leaders of Israel!— Moreover Lazarus had done them no harm. Though a disciple, there is no proof that he was a leading follower of Christ, much less a preacher of the Gospel. But he was an inconvenient standing evidence, and so he must be removed! v11.—[Because...many...Jews went away.] This sentence shows the immense effect that the raising of Lazarus had on the public mind, in spite of all the priests could do to prevent it. In every age people will think for themselves, when God's truth comes into a land. Prisons and threats and penalties cannot prevent men thinking. Mind and thought cannot be chained. When ecclesiastical tyrants burn martyrs, and destroy Bibles, and silence preachers, they forget their is one thing they cannot do. They cannot stop the inward machinery of people's thoughts. The expression "went away" will hardly bear the sense put on it by Pearce, of "withdrawing themselves from the service of the synagogue." It probably only means "went to Bethany." Bloomfield says, "it denotes their ceasing to pay that regard to the teaching of the Scribes which they formerly had done." [And believed in Jesus.] I dare not think that this "believing" means more than an intellectual conviction that Jesus must be the Messiah. I see no evidence that it means the faith of the heart. Yet it is probable this was exactly the state of mind in which many hundreds or thousands of Jews were before the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the day of Pentecost; convinced but not converted, persuaded that Jesus was the Christ of God but afraid to confess Him. Hence on the day of Pentecost we cannot doubt that many hundreds of Peter's hearers were prepared to believe. The stony ground of prejudice and ignorant adhesion to Judaism had been broken to pieces, and the seed fell into soil prepared for it. Poole thinks that Lazarus after his marvelous resurrection, "possibly spake of it, to the honor and glory of God," and that this excited the special anger of the priests. A careful reader of the Gospels can hardly fail to observe that our Lord Jesus Christ's conduct, at this stage of His earthly ministry, is very peculiar. It is unlike anything else recorded of Him in the New Testament. Hitherto we have seen Him withdrawing as much as possible from public notice, retiring into the wilderness, and checking those who would have brought Him forward and made Him a king. As a rule He did not court popular attention. He did not "cry or strive, or cause His voice to be heard in the streets." (Matthew 12:19.) Here, on the contrary, we see Him making a public entry into Jerusalem, attended by an immense crowd of people, and causing even the Pharisees to say, "Behold, the world is gone after Him." The explanation of this apparent inconsistency is not hard to find out. The time had come at last when Christ was to die for the sins of the world. The time had come when the true passover Lamb was to be slain, when the true blood of atonement was to be shed, when Messiah was to be "cut off" according to prophecy (Daniel 9:26), when the way into the holiest was to be opened by the true High Priest to all mankind. Knowing all this, our Lord purposely drew attention to Himself. Knowing this, He placed Himself prominently under the notice of the whole Jewish nation. It was only meet and right that this thing should not be "done in a corner." (Acts 26:26.) If ever there was a transaction in our Lord's earthly ministry which was public, it was the sacrifice which He offered up on the cross of Calvary. He died at the time of year when all the tribes were assembled at Jerusalem for the passover feast. Nor was this all. He died in a week when by His remarkable public entry into Jerusalem He had caused the eyes of all Israel to be specially fixed upon Himself. We learn, for one thing, in these verses, how entirely voluntary the sufferings of Christ were. It is impossible not to see in the history before us that our Lord had a mysterious influence over the minds and wills of all around Him, whenever He thought fit to use it. Nothing else can account for the effect which His approach to Jerusalem had on the multitudes which accompanied Him. They seem to have been carried forward by a secret constraining power, which they were obliged to obey, in spite of the disapproval of the leaders of the nation. In short, just as our Lord was able to make winds, and waves, and diseases, and devils obey Him, so was He able, when it pleased Him, to turn, the minds of men according to His will. For the case before us does not stand alone. The men of Nazareth could not hold Him when He chose to "pass through the midst of them and go His way." (Luke 4:30.) The angry Jews of Jerusalem could not detain him when they would have laid violent hands on Him in the Temple; but, "going through the midst of them, He passed by." (John 8:59.) Above all, the very soldiers who apprehended Him in the garden, at first "went backward and fell to the ground." (John 18:6.) In each of these instances there is but one explanation. A Divine influence was put forth. There was about our Lord during His whole earthly ministry a mysterious "hiding of His power." (Habakkuk 3:4.) But He had almighty power when He was pleased to use it. Why then did He not resist His enemies at last? Why did He not scatter the band of soldiers who came to seize Him, like chaff before the wind? There is but one answer. He was a willing Sufferer in order to procure redemption for a lost and ruined soul. He had undertaken to give His own life as a ransom, that we might live for ever, and He laid it down on the cross with all the desire of His heart. He did not bleed, and suffer, and die, because He was vanquished by superior force, and could not help Himself, but because He loved us, and rejoiced to give Himself for us as our Substitute. He did not die because He could not avoid death, but because He was willing with all His heart to make His soul an offering for sin. For ever let us rest our hearts on this most comfortable thought. We have a most willing and loving Savior. It was His delight to do His Father's will, and to make a way for lost and guilty man to draw near to God in peace. He loved the work He had taken in hand, and the poor sinful world which He came to save. Never then let us give way to the unworthy thought that our Savior does not love to see sinners coming to Him, and does not rejoice to save them. He who was a most willing Sacrifice on the cross, is also a most willing Savior at the right hand of God. He is just as willing to receive sinners who come to Him now for peace, as He was to die for sinners, when He held back His power, and willingly suffered on Calvary. We learn, for another thing, in these verses, how minutely the prophecies concerning Christ's first coming were fulfilled. The riding into Jerusalem on an ass, which is here recorded, might seem at first sight a simple action and in no way remarkable. But when we turn to the Old Testament, we find that this very thing had been predicted by the Prophet Zechariah five hundred years before. (Zechariah 9:9.) We find that the coming of a Redeemer some day, was not the only thing which the Holy Ghost had revealed to the Fathers but that even the least particulars of His earthly career were predicted and written down with precise accuracy. Such fulfillments of prophecy as this deserve the special attention of all who love the Bible and read it with reverence. They show us that every word of Holy Scripture was given by inspiration of God. They teach us to beware of the mischievous practice of spiritualizing and explaining away the language of Scripture. We must settle it in our minds that the plain, literal meaning of the Bible is generally the true and correct meaning. Here is a prediction of Zechariah literally and exactly fulfilled. Our Lord was not merely a very humble person, as some spiritualizing interpreters would have explained Zechariah's words to mean, but He literally rode into Jerusalem on an ass. Above all, such fulfillments teach us what we may expect in looking forward to the second advent of Jesus Christ. They show us that we must look for a literal accomplishment of the prophecies concerning that second coming, and not for a figurative and a spiritual one. For ever let us hold fast this great principle. Happy is that Bible-reader who believes the words of the Bible to mean exactly what they seem to mean. Such a man has got the true key of knowledge in looking forward to things to come. To know that predictions about the second advent of Christ will be fulfilled literally, just as predictions about the first advent of Christ were fulfilled literally, is the first step towards a right understanding of unfulfilled prophecy. ================== Notes— v12.—[On the next day.] This day must have been the Sunday before Easter, which is commonly known in England as "Palm Sunday," from the circumstance here related. [Much people...come to the feast.] This must include many of the Jews who had come up to the passover from Galilee, and were doubtless well acquainted with our Lord's ministry and the numerous miracles He had wrought in Galilee. Some of them in all human probability had formed part of the multitude whom He fed with a few loaves in the wilderness. [When they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem.] We must suppose that by some means our Lord's intention of coming to Jerusalem must have become known, either by Himself communicating it, or by His disciples learning it and telling others. This information would be carried back to the city by those who came from thence to Bethany on Saturday. Bethany however was on the direct road from Jericho to Jerusalem, and the tidings of our Lord's approach may have traveled before Him for some days. Rollock thinks this multitude must have been chiefly composed of Jews not residing in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Jews, he thinks, are an instance of the old proverb, which he quotes, "the nearer the Church the further from God." v13.—[Took branches of palm trees, and went...meet him.] The precise motive of this action we are left to conjecture. Palm branches were carried by processions attending kings or victorious generals on public occasions. The triumphant host in heaven, which John saw in vision, was composed of persons having "palms in their hands." (Revelation 7:9.) It may be that some of the crowd on this occasion believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Others, we may be sure, did what the rest did, without any special motive at all. At most, we can only suppose that the multitude had a vague idea that Jesus was somebody very remarkable,— a prophet, or some one raised up by God,— and as such did Him honor. Rollock thinks the custom of carrying branches at the feast of tabernacles, as the expression of joy, was the motive of the crowd here. [And cried, Hosanna.] This Hebrew word is taken from Psalms 118:25, and signifies "save now, we beseech Thee." Calvin thinks this phrase testified that they acknowledged Christ to be the Messiah, and considers that Psalms 118:1-29 had special reference to Messiah's coming. [Blessed...King of Israel that cometh...name...Lord.] This sentence would be more literally rendered, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord, the king of Israel." It is partly taken from Psalms 118:26; but there the words are simply "Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the LORD," and no mention is made of "the king."— We can only conjecture that some of the multitude had a vague idea that Jesus had come to be a temporal King, and a conquering Messiah, who would set Israel free from all foreign dominion. These few caught up the words of the Psalm, and their cry was taken up by the many around them, perhaps without knowing distinctly what they did or said. Nothing is so soon caught up as a popular cry. From "Hosanna" to "Crucify Him" there was only an interval of a very few days! Nothing is so worthless as popular applause. Theophylact holds decidedly that the multitude honored our Lord as God. But I cannot think it. v14.—[And Jesus...found...ass, sat thereon.] That there was no chance or accident in the ass being found, we know from Matthew's Gospel, where we read that the disciples were sent to get the ass ready. (Matthew 21:7.) Every step of this triumphal progress into Jerusalem was pre-arranged. To ride upon an ass, we must always remember, was not so low and ignominious a mode of traveling as it may seem to us. The Eastern ass is a very different creature to the English ass,— larger, stronger, and far more valuable. Asses are specially named as part of the wealth of Abraham, Jacob, and Job. (Genesis 12:16; Genesis 30:43; Job 42:12.) Solomon had an officer specially over the asses. (1 Chronicles 27:30.) Abraham, Balaam, Achsah, Abigail, and the Shunamite rich woman, all rode on asses. To ride on white asses was a mark of great men in the days of the Judges. (Judges 5:10.) The idea therefore of anything degrading in riding on an ass must be entirely dismissed from our minds. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the ass is not the animal that a king or ruler, in any age, has ever chosen to use on public occasions, in heading a procession. The horse has always been preferred. The use of an ass, we cannot doubt, was meant to show that our Lord's kingdom was utterly unlike the kingdoms of this world. No Roman soldier in the garrison of Jerusalem, who, standing at his post or sitting in his barrack-window, saw our Lord riding on an ass, could report to his centurion that He looked like one who came to wrest the kingdom of Judæa out of the hand of the Romans, drive out Pontius Pilate and his legions from the tower of Antonia, and achieve independence for the Jews with the sword! The Greek word rendered "young ass" here, is a diminutive, and seems used intentionally to show that it was a very young or small ass. [As it is written.] By riding on an ass our Lord had fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah, in which, 500 years before, the prophet had foretold that the King of Zion would one day appear "riding upon an ass." At the time when he prophesied this, there were no kings in Jerusalem. The kingdom had ceased at the captivity. We cannot doubt that this prophecy was well known among the Scribes and Pharisees, and taken together with the fact that Daniel's 70 weeks were expiring, our Lord's entry into Jerusalem in this fashion must have raised many thoughts in their hearts. Let it be noted that many like events in our Lord's earthly ministry were foreknown and foretold long before they happened, and with increasing minuteness and particularity as the roll of prophecy drew near to an end. v15.—[Fear not, daughter of Sion, etc.] It will be observed, of course, that John does not quote literally and exactly all that Zechariah said. He omits several words. The explanation is simple. He did not quote from memory only, and so forget part, but he purposely only quoted that part of the prediction which was now specially fulfilled: viz., "the riding on the ass." The object of the prophecy, when it was first delivered, was to comfort the Jews in their low and decayed state, after their return from Babylon, by a promise of Messiah. Therefore Zechariah was taught by the Holy Ghost to say things which may be paraphrased as follows: "Fear not; be not cast down or depressed, O daughter of Sion, or inhabitants of Jerusalem. Low and depressed as your condition may be now, there will be a day when you shall have a King again. There shall come One who will ride on a certain public occasion into thy gates,— a King on an ass's colt; not as a warrior, with a sword in hand, but as a peaceful Prince, a just and holy King, better even than David, Solomon, Hezekiah, or Josiah, and bringing with Him salvation for souls. Therefore think not thyself forsaken, because thou art poor now, and have no King. Look forward to thy coming King." Let it be noted that Christ's coming, first or second, is always the great topic of comfort in prophetical writings. v16.—[These things understood not...disciples...first.] It is clear from this and other kindred passages, that our Lord's own immediate followers had a very imperfect knowledge of our Lord's Person and work, and of the fulfillment of Scripture which was going on around them. Brought up amidst Jewish notions of a glorious temporal Messiah, they failed to see the full meaning of many of our Lord's doings. Let us never forget that men may be true Christians, and right hearted, and yet be very ignorant on some points. "Faith," says Zwingle, on this verse, "admits of degrees and increase." In estimating others, we must make great allowance for early training and associations. [But when Jesus was glorified.] This must mean, as Theophylact says, our Lord's ascension. After that time, and the day of Pentecost, the minds of the disciples were greatly enlightened. Compare John 7:39— "The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." [Then remembered...these things...written of Him.] The power of memory to see things long after they happen, in a new light, and then to recollect them vividly, is very remarkable. In no case does it appear more curiously than in the rising again in our minds of texts and sermons heard long ago, which at the time apparently left no impression on us. Preachers and teachers may take comfort in this. All is not lost that they say, although their hearers and scholars may seem at the time to pay no attention. Their words in many cases shall have a resurrection. One great cause of this, is that it is part of the Holy Ghost's office "to bring things to remembrance." (John 14:26.) [And...they...done these things...Him.] The disciples found, long after the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, that they had been unconscious actors in a mighty accomplishment of Scripture. This is a thought for us all. We have not the least idea, during the greater part of our lives, how much of God's great purposes on earth are being carried on through us and by us, without our being conscious of it. The full extent to which they are carried on we shall never know till we wake up in another world. We shall then discern with wonder and amazement the full meaning of many a thing in which we were unconscious agents during our lives. Calvin remarks, "Then, after the ascension, did it occur to the disciples that Christ did not do these things rashly, and that these men were not employed in idle amusement, but that the whole transaction had been regulated by the providence of God." Poole observes, that here John "confesseth his own ignorance." He was present, and saw all that was done, but did not understand it at the time. v17.—[The people therefore...Lazarus...bare record.] I feel no doubt that this verse describes one part of the multitude which met our Lord, and the following verse describes another part. One part, and of course a small one, consisted of those who had seen the raising of Lazarus. The other, and a much larger one, consisted of those who had only heard the report. That there must have been a very large number of persons present at the miracle of Bethany, is, I think, indirectly proved by the expression here used, "people that were with Him." The words "bare record," must mean that they testified that a great miracle really had been wrought, and that this same Jesus, now riding on an ass before the eyes of the people, was that very Person who had wrought it. I do not see that we can possibly get more out of the expression, and I cannot suppose that these people testified their belief in Christ's Messiahship. The double expression, "called out of his grave," and "raised from the dead," deserves notice. It is doubtless meant to keep before our minds the mighty simplicity of the means used by our Lord. He spoke, and it was done. He "called" to Lazarus to come forth, and he was "raised" at once. v18.—[For this cause...people met Him, etc.] This verse describes the state of mind of the larger part of the multitude which surrounded our Lord at His entry into Jerusalem. It consisted of those who had heard the report of His raising Lazarus,— a story magnified, no doubt, in the telling. Strong curiosity to see the Person who had done such a miracle, would call forth an immense crowd in any city. But among Jews, familiar with Old Testament miracles, assembled in enormous numbers for the Passover, excited by the rumor of Messiah coming,— among such we may well believe that the report of Jesus coming in from Bethany, would draw together many myriads of spectators to meet Him. The Greek words, "for this cause," here seem to refer forward to the latter part of the verse, and not backward to the preceding verse. Compare John 10:17, where the same form of language is used. v19.—[The Pharisees...said...prevail nothing.] This is the language of men baffled, angry, and at their wits' end from vexation, to see their plans defeated. Instead of finding people willing to lay hands on Jesus as a malefactor, and to deliver Him up into their power, they beheld a large multitude surrounding Him with joyful acclamations, and saluting Him as a King! Of course they could do nothing but sit still and see it. The least attempt to use violence against our Lord would have raised a tumult, and endangered their own lives. So that they were obliged to see their most hated enemy entering Jerusalem in triumph, like Mordecai led by Haman. (Esther 6:11.) "Perceive ye," I believe, should be taken as an imperative, and not as an interrogative indicative. It sounds like the language of men looking on from the city walls or the temple courts, as the huge procession wound slowly through the gates of the city. "Behold this sight! Behold how you do nothing effectual to stop this fellow's course! Your order to denounce Him, and have Him apprehended, is utterly useless and unprofitable." Chrysostom and Theophylact think that those who said this had some faith and felt rightly, but had not courage enough to confess Christ. But I cannot agree with them. Calvin and other reformers think, on the contrary, that it was the language of Christ's enemies. Bullinger observes that wicked men show their wickedness especially by their dislike of true religion, and their annoyance when, as in the case before us, it seems to enjoy a temporary popularity. For neglect and contempt of religion, they show no concern at all. [Behold...world...gone after Him.] Some allowance must of course be made for the exaggerated language which angry and disappointed men use under the influence of passion. Nevertheless the word "world" may not be really so extravagant as it appears at first, when we consider the immense number of Jews who attended the passover feast. According to a computation made by Josephus there were nearly three millions of people assembled on such occasions at Jerusalem. At this rate we can understand that the crowd drawn together by our Lord's public entry might well be so large as to warrant the saying, "The world is gone after Him." Most of the crowd, it may be remembered, were not dwellers in Jerusalem, but strangers, who were only visitors or sojourners, absent from home, and would materially swell a crowd. In leaving this passage it is impossible not to feel that there must have been an overruling, constraining influence on the minds of the Jewish people on the occasion of our Lord's triumphant entry into Jerusalem. This no doubt was an influence miraculously exercised by our Lord in order to draw all men's attention to Himself, and to make His approaching Sacrifice on the cross as public an event as possible. Rollock observes, "A secret power of royal authority stirred up the minds of the multitude to receive Christ as a king." He also observes that it is the same power which Christ will put forth when He comes at the last day to judge the world. There is more going on in some people's minds than we are aware of. The case of the Greeks before us is a remarkable proof of this. Who would have thought when Christ was on earth, that foreigners from a distant land would have come forward in Jerusalem, and said, "Sir, we would see Jesus"? Who these Greeks were, what they meant, why they desired to see Jesus, what their inward motives were,—all these are questions we cannot answer. Like Zacchæus, they may have been influenced by curiosity. Like the wise men from the East, they may have surmised that Jesus was the promised King of the Jews, whom all the Eastern world was expecting. Enough for us to know that they showed more interest in Christ than Caiaphas and all his companions. Enough to know that they drew from our Lord's lips sayings which are still read in one hundred and fifty languages, from one end of the world to the other. We learn, for one thing, from our Lord's words in this passage, that death is the way to spiritual life and glory. "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." This sentence was primarily meant to teach the wondering Greeks the true nature of Messiah's kingdom. If they thought to see a King like the kings of this world, they were greatly mistaken. Our Lord would have them know that He came to carry a cross, and not to wear a crown. He came not to live a life of honor, ease, and magnificence, but to die a shameful and dishonored death. The kingdom He came to set up was to begin with a crucifixion, and not with a coronation. Its glory was to take its rise not from victories won by the sword, and from accumulated treasures of gold and silver, but from the death of its King. But this sentence was also meant to teach a wider and broader lesson still. It revealed, under a striking figure, the mighty foundation-truth, that Christ's death was to be the source of spiritual life to the world. From His cross and passion was to spring up a mighty harvest of benefit to all mankind. His death, like a grain of seed-corn, was to be the root of blessings and mercies to countless millions of immortal souls. In short the great principle of the Gospel was once more exhibited,—that Christ's vicarious death (not His life, or miracles, or teaching, but His death) was to bring forth fruit to the praise of God, and to provide redemption for a lost world. This deep and mighty sentence was followed by a practical application, which closely concerns ourselves. "He that hateth his life shall keep it." He that would be saved must be ready to give up life itself, if necessary, in order to obtain salvation. He must bury his love of the world, with its riches, honors, pleasures, and rewards, with a full belief that in so doing he will reap a better harvest, both here and hereafter. He who loves the life that now is so much that he cannot deny himself anything for the sake of his soul, will find at length that he has lost everything. He, on the contrary, who is ready to cast away everything most dear to him in this life, if it stands in the way of his soul, and to crucify the flesh with its affections, and lusts, will find at length that he is no loser. In a word, his losses will prove nothing in comparison to his gains. Truths such as these should sink deeply into our hearts, and stir up self-inquiry. It is as true of Christians as it is of Christ,—there can be no life without death, there can be no sweet without bitter, there can be no crown without a cross. Without Christ's death there would have been no life for the world. Unless we are willing to die to sin, and crucify all that is most dear to flesh and blood, we cannot expect any benefit from Christ's death. Let us remember these things, and take up our cross daily, like men. Let us for the joy set before us endure the cross and despise the shame, and in the end we shall sit down with our Master at God's right hand. The way of self-crucifixion and sanctification may seem foolishness and waste to the world, just as burying good seed-corn seems wasteful to the child and the fool. But there never lived the man who did not find that by sowing to the Spirit, he reaped life everlasting. (Galatians 6:8.) We learn, for another thing, from our Lord's words, that if we profess to serve Christ, we must follow Him. "If any man serve Me," is the saying, "let him follow Me." That expression, "following," is one of wide signification, and brings before our minds many familiar ideas. As the soldier follows his general, as the servant follows his master, as the scholar follows his teacher; as the sheep follows its shepherd, just so ought the professing Christian to follow Christ. Faith and obedience are the leading marks of real followers, and will always be seen in true believing Christians. Their knowledge may be very small, and their infirmities very great; their grace very weak, and their hope very dim. But they believe what Christ says, and strive to do what Christ commands. And of such Christ declares, "They serve Me: they are mine." Christianity like this, receives little praise from man. It is too thorough, too decided, too strong, too real. To serve Christ in name and form is easy work, and satisfies most people; but to follow Him in faith and life demands more trouble than the generality of men will take about their souls. Laughter, ridicule, opposition, persecution, are often the only reward which Christ's followers get from the world. Their religion is one, "whose praise is not of men but of God." (Romans 2:29.) Yet to him who followeth, let us never forget, the Lord Jesus holds out abundant encouragement: "Where I am," He declares, "there also shall my servant be: if any man serve Me, him will my Father honor." Let us lay to heart these comfortable promises, and go forward in the narrow way without fear. The world may cast out our name as evil, and turn us out of its society; but when we dwell with Christ in glory, we shall have a home from which we can never be ejected.—The world may pour contempt on our religion, and laugh us and our Christianity to scorn; but when the Father honors us at the last day, before the assembly of angels and men, we shall find that His praise makes amends for all. ================== Notes— v20.—[And there were certain Greeks, etc., etc.] Who these Greeks were has exercised the conjectural ingenuity of commentators. They were not downright heathens, it is clear, from the expression that they were of those "that came to worship" at the feast. No heathen would be admitted to the Passover.— They were not, in my judgment, Jews who had lived among Greeks until they were more Grecian than Jewish in their language. The word we have rendered "Greeks" seems to me to make that impossible.— I believe they were men who were by birth heathens, but had become proselytes to Judaism, and as such were regular attendants on the Jewish feasts. That there were many such proselytes wherever Jews lived, is a simple matter of fact. So in Acts 17:4, we read of "devout" or "worshipping" Greeks. The leavening influence of Judaism, in every part of the heathen world where the scattered Jews dwelt, before the coming of Christ, was probably very considerable. It is worth notice that as Gentiles, the wise men from the East, were among the first to honor our Lord when He was born, so Gentiles were among the first to show interest in Him just before His crucifixion. Whether the circumstance recorded in the passage before us took place the same day that our Lord rode in triumph into Jerusalem, or whether there was not a break or interval of a day or two, admits of question. Judging from the inquiry of the Greeks, "We would see Jesus," it seems unlikely that it happened the same day. It stands to reason that our Lord, at a time when He was riding into Jerusalem on an ass, and was the object of popular enthusiasm, would easily have been distinguished and recognized by the Greeks. Moreover one cannot suppose that the words spoken in the following verse, and the miracle of the voice from heaven, belong to a time of noise, shouting and popular acclamation, such as there must have been during the procession. For these reasons I incline to the opinion that we must suppose an interval of a day or two between this verse and the preceding one. v21.—[The same came...Philip...Bethsaida...Galilee.] Why the Greeks came to Philip more than any other disciple we do not know. It is conjectured that Philip, being an inhabitant of a town in North Galilee, was more likely than the other disciples to be acquainted with Greeks, from nearby Tyre and Sidon. But this reason applies quite as much to Andrew, Peter, James, and John, who were all Galilæans, as it does to Philip.— Is it not worth noticing that Philip's name is a more purely Greek name than that of any of the apostles? Does not this indicate that he probably had Greek relatives and connections? The mention of Bethsaida accounts for Philip speaking to Andrew, in the next verse. Bethsaida was the native place of Andrew and Peter, and Philip therefore was their fellow-townsman. [And desired him, saying, Sir.] The Greek word rendered "desired" is more frequently translated, "asked," "besought," "prayed." It implies the desire of an inquirer who expresses a wish for a thing, and asks whether it is possible for him to have it. The word we render "sir" is almost always rendered "lord." When rendered "sir" it is addressed by an inferior to a superior. Thus the servant of the householder says, "Sir, didst thou not sow good seed?" (Matthew 13:27.) The Pharisees said to Pilate, "Sir, we remember that deceiver said." (Matthew 27:63.) The Samaritan woman says to Jesus three times, "Sir." (John 4:11, John 4:15, John 4:19.) Here the use of the word marks the respect of the Greeks for our Lord and His apostles. [We would see Jesus.] The English here fails to express the Greek fully. It is literally, "we wish: we desire to see." Concerning the motive of the Greeks in asking to see our Lord, we know nothing certain. It may have been nothing but curiosity, like that of Zacchæus, aroused by hearing rumors about Jesus, and sharpened by seeing the procession of the palm-bearing multitude at His entry into the city. This alone was enough to excite the attention of Greeks accustomed to the demonstrations of their own countrymen on public occasions.— It may possibly be that, like the Canaanitish woman, the Centurion of Capernaum, and Cornelius, they had as proselytes, got hold of the great truths which underlaid Judaism, and were actually looking for a Redeemer. But we do not know. Bengel thinks that at this moment "Jesus was engaged in the inner part of the temple, to which an entrance was not open to the Greeks," and for this reason the Greeks could not get at Him, and have a personal interview. These Greeks, we should note, sought to see Jesus at the very time when the Jews sought to kill Him. v22.—[Philip cometh and telleth Andrew.] This expression seems to favor the idea that this whole transaction was not on the same day that Jesus entered Jerusalem. On such a day there would hardly be an opportunity for one disciple coming quietly and telling a thing to another. Why Philip chose to tell Andrew we have seen. He was his fellow-townsman. [And again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.] This expression seems to imply that the two Apostles consulted together before they told our Lord. Perhaps, as thorough Jews, they did not feel sure that our Lord would care to give an interview to Gentiles, and at first hesitated about telling Him. They remembered that at one time Jesus had said, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles." (Matthew 10:5.) On reflection they probably remembered our Lord's kindness to the Canaanitish mother, and Roman centurion, and resolved to tell Him. Of course it is possible that the Greeks only wanted to look at our Lord and see what He was like, and not to converse with Him. If this was all, the disciples may have doubted whether it was worth mentioning to Jesus. v23.—[And Jesus answered them, saying.] It is doubtful whether this was spoken to the two disciples only,— or to them and the Greeks before mentioned,— or to the twelve alone. I incline to think it must mean to the twelve, and specially to Andrew and Philip. [The hour is come...Son of man...glorified.] The true key-note to this verse, and the two which follow, is probably this. Our Lord saw the state of mind in which His followers were. He saw them excited by His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, and the desire of strangers like the Greeks to see their Master. He saw they were secretly expecting a glorious kingdom to be immediately set up, in which they would have chief places, power, and authority. He proceeds to rectify their conceptions, and to remind them of what He had repeatedly told them, His own death:— "The hour has certainly arrived for my being glorified. I am about to leave the world, ascend up to my Father, finish the work I came to do, and be highly exalted. My earthly ministry of humiliation is ending, and my time of glory is drawing nigh. But all this is to be brought about in a way very different from that which you are thinking about. I am going to a cross first, and not a throne. I am going first to be condemned, crucified, and slain." That "glorified" means "to be crucified," I cannot admit, with such texts as John 7:39 and John 12:16 before me. That the cross led to glory, and that through the crucifixion came the glorification, I believe firmly. But the glory came after the suffering (Luke 24:26.) Let us note that "the hour" or season for Christ to finish His ministry was fixed and appointed. Till it came the Jews could do nothing to stop His preaching or harm His person. Just so it is with His people in one sense. Each is immortal till his work is done. Does it not seem that the inquiry of the Greeks has much to do with our Lord's opening words?— "The Gentiles are beginning to inquire after Me. Thus the hour is manifestly come that my work should be finished, and my kingdom fully set up in the world, by my crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension." v24.—[Verily, verily I say unto you.] This is one of those solemn prefaces which are so frequent in John's Gospel, and indicate some very weighty truth coming. I think "unto you" must surely include not only Andrew and Philip, but all the company around our Lord. [Except a corn of wheat, etc., etc.] Our Lord here illustrates a great Scriptural truth by a very familiar fact in nature. That fact is, that in plants and seeds life comes by death. The seed must be put into the ground, must rot, decay, and die, if we want it to bear fruit and produce a crop. If we refuse to bury the seed, and will keep it without sowing it, we shall never reap any harvest. We must be content to let it die if we want corn. The wealth of spiritual truth which this beautiful figure unfolds is very great. The death of Christ was the life of the world. From it, as a most prolific seed, was to spring an enormous harvest of blessing to souls, and of glory to God. His substitution on the cross, His atoning death, were to be the beginning of untold blessings to a lost world. To wish Him not to die, to dislike the idea of His death (as the disciples evidently did), was as foolish as to keep seed-corn locked up in the granary, and to refuse to sow it. "I am the corn of wheat," Jesus seems to say. "Unless I die, whatever you in your private opinion may think, my purpose in coming into the world will not be accomplished. But if I die, multitudes of souls will be saved." Let us carefully mark here the immense importance which our Lord attaches to His death. Nothing can explain this but the old foundation-doctrine of the Bible, that Christ's sacrificial death on the cross is the only Satisfaction and Atonement for the sin of the world. A passage like this can never be thoroughly explained by those who regard Christ's death as nothing more than a martyrdom or an example of self-denial. It was something far greater and more important than this. It was the dying of a corn of wheat, in order that out of its death should spring up an enormous spiritual harvest. Christ's vicarious death is the world's life. Let us notice here, as elsewhere, the Divine wisdom with which our Master illustrated spiritual truth by earthly figures. Illustrations fitly chosen, strike men much more than abstract arguments. Ministers and teachers of religion should study to "use similitudes." Theophylact thinks our Lord meant by this beautiful figure, to encourage His disciples not to be offended and shaken in mind by His coming death. In His case, as in the natural world, they must remember life comes through death. Zwingle thinks that as with the corn, when sown, so it is with the body of Christ. It does us good by dying for us, and not by our eating it. Gill remarks, that by "abiding alone," in this simile, Christ meant that if He did not die, He would be "alone" in heaven with the Father and the elect angels, but without any of the sons of men. Scott says the same. v25.—[He that loveth his life, etc.] There are few of our Lord's sayings more frequently recorded by the Holy Ghost, than this pair of paradoxes. The repetition shows its great importance. It will be found in Matthew 10:39; Matthew 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; Luke 17:33; as well as here. The meaning is plain. "He that loves his life, or thinks more of the life that now is than that which is to come, shall lose that which is the best part of his life, his soul. He that hateth his life, or cares little for it compared to the life to come, shall preserve to eternal glory that which is the best part of his life, to wit, his soul." One object of our Lord in saying these words, was evidently to prevent His disciples looking for good things in this life, if they followed Him. They must give up their Jewish ideas about temporal rewards and honors in Messiah's service. They must understand that His kingdom was entirely spiritual, and that if they were His disciples they must be content to lose much in this life, in order to gain the glory of the life to come. So far from promising them temporal rewards, He would have them distinctly know that they must give up much and sacrifice much, if they wanted to be saved. The other object our Lord had in view in saying these words, was to teach all Christians in every age, that like Him, they must make up their minds to sacrifice much, and to die to the world, in the hope of a harvest of glory in a world to come. Through death we must seek life. Eternal life must be the great end a Christian looks to. To attain it he must be willing to give up everything. The practical condemnation which this verse passes on the life lived by many, should never be overlooked. How few hate their lives here! How many love them, and care for nothing but how to make them comfortable and happy! The eternal loss or the eternal gain are often entirely forgotten. Augustine gives a wise caution: "Take heed lest there steal upon thee a will to make away with thyself, while thou takest in the sense that it is a duty to hate thine own life in this world. Hence certain malignant and perverse men give themselves to the flames, choke themselves in the water, dash themselves in pieces, and so perish. Christ taught not this. Not by himself, but by another, must that man be put to death who would follow in Christ's footsteps." The word "hate" here must be taken comparatively. It is a Hebraism, like "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated."— "Your appointed feasts my soul hateth." (Romans 9:13; Isaiah 1:14.) Scott thinks this verse was meant to teach the Greeks and all the disciples to arm themselves with a mind like their Master's, if they wanted to follow Him. v26.—[If any man serve Me...follow Me.] This verse seems spoken for the benefit and information of the Greeks who sought to see Jesus, and of all who desired to become His disciples. If any man desires to serve Christ, and be a Christian, he must be content to follow His Master, walk in His footsteps, share His lot, do as He did, and partake of His Master's inheritance in this world. He must not look for good things here,— for crowns, kingdoms, riches, honors, wealth, and dignity. Like His Master, he must be content with a cross. He must, in a word, "take up his cross and follow Me." (Matthew 16:24.) As Paul says, "We are heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:17.) [And where I am, there...my servant be.] This is the first thing that Christ promises to those who follow Him. They shall be with Christ wherever He is, in paradise, and in His glorious kingdom. He and His servant shall not be parted. Whatever the Master has, the servant shall have also. It is a comfortable thought, that however little we know of the life to come and the state after death, we do know that we shall be "with Christ, which is far better." (Philippians 1:23.) [If any man serve me...my Father honor.] This is the second thing which Jesus promises to His disciples. The Father shall give to those who love Christ such honor as eye hath not seen nor ear heard. Honor from the men of this world they may not have. Honor from the Father shall make amends for all. It is impossible not to see throughout this verse that our Lord's intention is to discourage the carnal and earthly expectation of His Jewish followers, and yet to encourage them by showing what they might confidently look for. They must follow in His steps if they were His true servants, and in so following they would find a cross and not a crown, whatever they might be thinking, at that moment, while the Hosannas of an excited crowd were sounding in their ears. But though they had a cross, they should not miss a reward finally, which would make amends for all. They would be with Christ in glory. They would be honored by God the Father. The words, "him will my Father honor," of course admit of being applied to this life in a certain sense: "Them that honor Me I will honor." (1 Samuel 2:30.) But it is much more agreeable to the context, I think, to apply them to the honor which shall be given in another world. The clearest conception we can form of heaven, is that which is here stated. It is being with Christ, and receiving honor from God. Heaven is generally described by negatives. This is, however, an exceptional positive. It is being "with Christ." (Compare John 14:3; John 17:24; 1 Thessalonians 4:17.) Let us note how wisely and mercifully our Lord always damped and checked the unscriptural expectations of His disciples. Never on any occasion do we find Him keeping back the cross, or bribing men to follow Him, as Mahomet did, by promising temporal comfort and happiness. THESE verses show us what Peter meant, when he said, "There are some things hard to be understood" in Scripture. (2 Peter 3:16.) There are depths here which we have no line to fathom thoroughly. This need not surprise us, or shake our faith. The Bible would not be a book "given by inspiration of God," if it did not contain many things which pass man's finite understanding. With all its difficulties it contains thousands of passages which the most unlearned may easily comprehend. Even here, if we look steadily at these verses, we may gather from them lessons of no mean importance. We have, first, in these verses, a great doctrine indirectly proved. That doctrine is the imputation of man's sin to Christ. We see the Savior of the world, the eternal Son of God troubled and disturbed in mind: "Now is my soul troubled." We see Him who could heal diseases with a touch, cast out devils with a word, and command the waves and winds to obey Him, in great agony and conflict of spirit. Now how can this be explained? To say, as some do, that the only cause of our Lord's trouble was the prospect of His own painful death on the cross, is a very unsatisfactory explanation. At this rate it might justly be said that many a martyr has shown more calmness and courage than the Son of God. Such a conclusion is, to say the least, most revolting. Yet this is the conclusion to which men are driven if they adopt the modern notion, that Christ's death was only a great example of self-sacrifice. Nothing can ever explain our Lord's trouble of soul, both here and in Gethsemane, except the old doctrine, that He felt the burden of man's sin pressing Him down. It was the mighty weight of a world's guilt imputed to Him and meeting on his head, which made Him groan and agonize, and cry, "Now is my soul troubled." Forever let us cling to that doctrine, not only as untying the knot of the passage before us, but as the only ground of solid comfort for the heart of a Christian. That our sins have been really laid on our Divine Substitute, and borne by Him, and that His righteousness is really imputed to us and accounted ours,—this is the real warrant for Christian peace. And if any man asks how we know that our sins were laid on Christ, we bid him read such passages as that which is before us, and explain them on any other principle if he can. Christ has borne our sins, carried our sins, groaned under the burden of our sins, been "troubled" in soul by the weight of our sins, and really taken away our sins. This, we may rest assured, is sound doctrine: this is Scriptural theology. We have, secondly, in these verses, a great mystery unfolded. That mystery is the possibility of much inward conflict of soul without sin. We cannot fail to see in the passage before us, a mighty mental struggle in our blessed Savior. Of its depth and intensity we can probably form very little conception. But the agonizing cry, "My soul is troubled,"—the solemn question, "What shall I say?"—the prayer of suffering flesh and blood, "Father, save Me from this hour,"—the meek confession, "For this cause came I unto this hour,"—the petition of a perfectly submissive will, "Father, glorify Thy name,"—what does all this mean? Surely there can be only one answer. These sentences tell of a struggle within our Savior's breast, a struggle arising from the natural feelings of one who was perfect man, and as man could suffer all that man is capable of suffering. Yet He in whom this struggle took place was the Holy Son of God, "In Him is no sin." (1 John 3:5.) There is a fountain of comfort here for all true servants of Christ, which ought never to be overlooked. Let them learn from their Lord's example that inward conflict of soul is not necessarily in itself a sinful thing. Too many, we believe, from not understanding this point, go heavily all their days on their way to heaven. They fancy they have no grace, because they find a fight in their own hearts. They refuse to take comfort in the Gospel, because they feel a battle between the flesh and the Spirit. Let them mark the experience of their Lord and Master, and lay aside their desponding fears. Let them study the experience of His saints in every age, from Paul downwards, and understand that as Christ had inward conflicts so must Christians expect to have them also. To give way to doubts and unbelief, is certainly wrong, and robs us of our peace. There is a faithless despondency, unquestionably, which is blameworthy, and must be resisted, repented of, and brought to the fountain for all sin, that it may be pardoned. But the mere presence of fight and strife and conflict in our hearts, is in itself no sin. The believer may be known by his inward warfare as well as by his inward peace. We have, thirdly, in these verses, a great miracle exhibited. That miracle is the heavenly Voice described in this passage—a voice which was heard so plainly that people said "it thundered,"—proclaiming, "I have glorified my name, and will glorify it again." This wondrous Voice was heard three times during our Lord's earthly ministry. Once it was heard at His baptism, when the heavens were opened and the Holy Ghost descended on Him.—Once it was heard at His transfiguration, when Moses and Elias appeared for a season with Him, before Peter, James, and John.—Once it was heard here at Jerusalem, in the midst of a mixed crowd of disciples and unbelieving Jews. On each occasion we know that it was the Voice of God the Father. But why and wherefore this Voice was only heard on these occasions, we are left to conjecture. The thing was a deep mystery, and we cannot now speak particularly of it. Let it suffice us to believe that this miracle was meant to show the intimate relations and unbroken union of God the Father and God the Son, throughout the period of the Son's earthly ministry. At no period during His incarnation was there a time when the eternal Father was not close to Him, though unseen by man.—Let us also believe that this miracle was meant to signify to bystanders the entire approval of the Son by the Father, as the Messiah, the Redeemer, and the Savior of man. That approval the Father was pleased to signify by voice three times, as well as to declare by signs and mighty deeds, performed by the Son in His name. These things we may well believe. But when we have said all, we must confess that the Voice was a mystery. We may read of it with wonder and awe, but we cannot explain it. We have, lastly, in these verses, a great prophecy delivered. The Lord Jesus declared, "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me." Concerning the true meaning of these words there can be but one opinion in any candid mind. They do not mean, as is often supposed, that if the doctrine of Christ crucified is lifted up and exalted by ministers and teachers, it will have a drawing effect on hearers. This is undeniably a truth, but it is not the truth of the text. They simply mean that the death of Christ on the cross would have a drawing effect on all mankind. His death as our Substitute, and the Sacrifice for our sins, would draw multitudes out of every nation to believe on Him and receive Him as their Savior. By being crucified for us, and not by ascending a temporal throne, He would set up a kingdom in the world, and gather subjects to Himself. How thoroughly this prophecy has been fulfilled for eighteen centuries, the history of the Church is an abundant proof. Whenever Christ crucified has been preached, and the story of the cross fully told, souls have been converted and drawn to Christ, just as iron-filings are drawn to a magnet, in every part of the world. No truth so exactly suits the wants of all children of Adam, of every color, climate, and language, as the truth about Christ crucified. And the prophecy is not yet exhausted. It shall yet receive a more complete accomplishment. A day shall come when every knee shall bow before the Lamb that was slain, and every tongue confess that He is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:10-11.) He that was "lifted up" on the cross shall yet sit on the throne of glory, and before Him shall be gathered all nations. Friends and foes, each in their own order, shall be "drawn" from their graves, and appear before the judgment-seat of Christ. Let us take heed in that day that we are found on His right hand! ================== Notes— v27.—[Now is my soul troubled, etc., etc.] This remarkable verse comes in somewhat abruptly. Yet the connection is not hard to trace. Our Lord had just been speaking of His own atoning death. The thought and prospect of that death appears to draw from Him the expressions of this verse, which I will now examine in order. [Now is my soul troubled.] This sentence implies a sudden, strong mental agony, which came over our Lord, troubling, distressing, and harassing Him.— What was it from? Not from the mere foresight of a painful death on the cross, and the bodily suffering attending it. No doubt human nature, even when sinless, naturally revolts from pain and suffering. Yet mere bodily pain has been endured for weeks by many a martyr, and even by heathen fanatics in India, without a groan or a murmur.— No: it was the weight of the world's imputed sin laid upon our Lord's head, which pressed Him downward, and made Him cry, "Now is my soul troubled." It was the sense of the whole burden of man's transgression imputed to Him, which, as He drew near to the cross, weighed Him down so tremendously. It was not His bodily sufferings, either anticipated or felt, but our sins, which here, at Gethsemane, and at Calvary, agonized and racked His soul. Let us notice here the reality of Christ's substitution for us. He was made "a curse" for us, and "sin" for us, and He felt it for a time most deeply. (Galatians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 5:21.) Those who deny the doctrine of substitution, imputation, and atonement, can never explain the expressions before us satisfactorily. Poole remarks, "There is a vast difference between this trouble of spirit in Christ, and that which is in us. Our troubles are upon reflection for our own sins, and the wrath of God due to us therefore; His troubles were for the wrath of God due to us for our sins.— Our troubles are because we have personally grieved God; His were because those given to Him had offended God.— We are afraid of our eternal condemnation; He was only afraid by a natural fear of death, which naturally rises higher according to the kind of death we die.— Our troubles have a mixture of despair, distrust, sinful horror: there was no such thing in His trouble.— Our troubles, in their natural tendency, are killing and destroying: only by accident and the wise ordering of Divine providence do they prove advantageous, and lead us to Him. His trouble, in the very nature of it, was pure, and clean, and sanative, and healing.— But that He was truly troubled, and that such a trouble did truly agree to His office as Mediator, and is a great foundation of peace, quiet, and satisfaction to us, is out of question. By some of these stripes we are healed." We should remember and admire the prayer in the Litany of the Greek Church: "By Thine unknown sufferings, good Lord deliver us." Rollock observes here, "If you ask me what the Divine nature in Christ was doing when He said, 'My soul is troubled,' and whether it was divided asunder from His human nature? I reply that it was not divided, but contained itself, or held itself passive, while the human nature was suffering. If it had exercised itself in its full power and glory, our Lord could not possibly have suffered." (The whole of Rollock's remarks on this difficult verse are singularly good, and deserve close study.) Hutcheson observes, "The rise and cause of this trouble was thus: the Godhead hiding itself from the humanity's sense, and the Father letting out not only an apprehension of sufferings to come, but a present taste of the horror of His wrath due to man for sin. Christ was amazed, perplexed, and overwhelmed with it in His humanity. And no wonder, since He had the sins of all the elect laid upon Him, by imputation, to suffer for." Hengstenberg remarks, "The only solution of this extreme trouble is the vicarious significance of the sufferings and death of Christ. If our chastisement was upon Him, in order that we might have peace, then in Him must have been concentrated all the horror of death. He bore the sin of the world, and the wages of that sin was death. Death therefore must to Him assume its most frightful form. The physical suffering was nothing compared to the immeasurable suffering of soul which impended over the Redeemer, and the full greatness and depth of which He clearly perceives. Therefore, in Hebrews 5:7, "a fear" is described as that which pressed with such awful weight upon our Lord. When God freed Him from that He saved Him from death. Thus, when the suffering of Christ is apprehended as vicarious and voluntary, all the accompanying circumstances can be easily understood." Let us note the exceeding guilt and sinfulness of sin. The thing which made even God's own Son, who had power to work works that none else did beside Him, groan, and cry, "My soul is troubled," can be no light thing. He that would know the full measure of sin and guilt should mark attentively this verse, and the expressions used by our Lord at Gethsemane and Calvary. It is worth noticing that this verse, Matthew 26:38, and Mark 14:34, are the only three places in the Gospels where our Lord speaks of "My soul." The word "now," I suspect, is emphatic: "Now, at this special time, my soul has begun to be specially troubled." [And what shall I say?] These words are thought by some, as Theophylact, Grotius, Bloomfield, and Barnes, to be wrongly translated in our English version. They would render them, "And what? What is my duty? What does the hour require of Me? Shall I say, Save Me," etc., etc.— I much prefer our English version as it is. I believe the question is strongly significant of the agony and conflict through which our Lord's soul was passing.— "What shall I say under this sense of pressing, overwhelming trouble? My human nature bids me say one thing,— acting alone and urging me alone. My knowledge of the purpose for which I came into the world bids me say another thing. What then shall I say?" Such a question as this is a strong proof of our Lord's real, true humanity. Rollock observes, " 'What shall I say?' is the language of the highest perplexity and anxiety of mind. In the height of anguish is the height of perplexity, so that a man knows not what to say or do. The Lord found deliverance in prayer. But the perpetual cry of the lost will be, 'What shall I say? What shall I do?' From that perplexity and anguish they will never be delivered." Bengel remarks, "Jesus says, 'What shall I say?' not, 'What shall I choose?' Compare with this the different expression of Paul, 'What I shall choose I wist not, for I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart.' " (Philippians 1:22-23.) Ecolampadius thinks the question means, "In what words shall I unfold my pain, or the bitterness and ingratitude of the Jews?" I prefer taking it as the language of perplexity and distress. The presence of two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ's person seems clearly taught when we compare the language used by our Lord in this verse, with the language of the fifth and seventeenth chapters of this Gospel. Here we see unmistakably our Lord's true humanity. There, on the other hand, we see no less plainly His divinity. Here He speaks as man: there as God. [Father, save Me from this hour.] This is undoubtedly a prayer to be saved from, or delivered from the agony and suffering of this hour. It is the language of a human nature which, though sinless, could suffer, and instinctively shrank from suffering. It would not have been real human nature if it had not so shrunk and recoiled. The idea of the prayer is just the same as that of the prayer in Gethsemane: "Let this cup pass from Me." (Matthew 26:39.) Let us learn from our Lord's example that there is nothing sinful in praying to be delivered from suffering, so long as we do it in submission to the will of God. There is nothing wrong in a sick person's saying, "Father, make me well," so long as the prayer is offered with proper qualification. Rollock observes, "In agony there is a certain forgetfulness of all things except present pain. This seems the case of our Lord here. Yet even here He turns to His Father, showing that He never loses the sense of the Father's love. The lost in hell will never turn to the Father." It is worth noticing that our Lord speaks of "the Father" and "My Father" at least 110 times in John's Gospel. [But for this cause came I unto this hour.] This sentence is an elliptical way of declaring our Lord's entire submission to His Father's will, in the matter of the prayer He had just prayed. "But I know that for this cause I came into the world and have reached this hour, to suffer as I am now suffering, and to agonize as I am now agonizing. I do not refuse the cup. If it be Thy will, I am willing to drink it. Only I tell Thee my feelings, with entire submission to Thy will." We may surely learn from the whole verse that Christians have no cause to despair because they feel trouble of soul,— because they feel perplexed, and know not what to say in the agony of inward conflict,— because their nature shrinks from pain, and cries to God to take it away. In all this there is nothing wicked or sinful. It was the expression of the human nature of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And in Him was no sin. Rollock says, "This is the language of one recollecting himself, and collecting his thoughts to remember something besides his agony and pain." v28.—[Father, glorify Thy name.] This passage seems the conclusion of the strife and agony of soul which came over our Lord at this particular period. It is as though He said, "I leave the matter in Thy hand, O My Father: do what Thou seest best. Glorify Thy name and Thy attributes in Me: do what is meet for setting forth Thy glory in the world. If it be for Thy glory that I should suffer, I am willing to suffer even unto the bearing of the world's sins." I see in the whole event here described, a short summary of what took place afterwards more fully at Gethsemane. There is a remarkable parallelism at every step. (a) Does our Lord say here, "My soul is troubled"? Just so He said in Gethsemane: "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." (Matthew 26:38.) (b) Does our Lord say here, "Father, save Me from this hour"? Just so he says in Gethsemane: "O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." (Matthew 26:39.) (c) Does our Lord say here, "For this cause came I unto this hour"? Just so he says in Gethsemane: "If this cup may not pass away from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done." (Matthew 26:42.) (d) Does our Lord say, finally, "Father, glorify Thy name"? Just so our Lord says, lastly, "The cup which my Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?" (John 18:11.) The brief prayer which our Lord here offers, we should remember, is the highest, greatest thing that we can ask God to do. The utmost reach of the renewed will of a believer, is to be able to say always, "Father, glorify Thy name in Me. Do with Me what Thou wilt, only glorify Thy name." The glory of God after all is the end for which all things were created. Paul's joyful hope, he told the Philippians, when a prisoner at Rome, was "that in all things, by life or by death, Christ might be magnified in his body." (Philippians 1:20.) Rollock says, "This is the language of one who now forgets the agony and pain, remembers only His Father's glory, and desires it even together with His own passion and death."— He also remarks that the experience of God's saints in great trouble, is in a sense much the same. For a time they forget everything but present pain. By and by they rise above their sufferings, and remember only God's glory. [Then came there a voice from heaven.] This voice was undoubtedly a great miracle. God the Father was heard speaking audibly with man's voice to the Son. Three times in our Lord's ministry this miracle took place: first, at His baptism; secondly, at His transfiguration; thirdly, just before His crucifixion. Rarely has the voice of God been heard by large crowds of unconverted men. Here, at Mount Sinai, and perhaps at our Lord's baptism, are the only three occasions on record. Of course we can no more explain this wonderful miracle, than any other miracle in God's Word. We can only reverently believe and admire it. The intimate nearness of the Father to the Son, all through His ministry, is one of the many thoughts which may occur to our minds as we consider the miracle. Our Lord was never left alone. His Father was alway with Him, though men knew it not. How could it indeed be otherwise? So far as concerned His Divine nature, He and the Father were "one." How anyone in the face of this passage can deny that the Father and the Son are two distinct Persons, it is very hard to understand. When one person is heard speaking to another, common sense seems to point out that there are two persons, and not one. Hammond maintains that there really was a loud clap of thunder, as well as a voice from heaven. Burkitt also seems to think the same, and compares it to the thunder which accompanied the giving of the law at Sinai. [I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.] This solemn sentence,— far more solemn in the pithy and expressive Greek language than it can possibly be made in our translation,— admits, as Augustine says, of being interpreted two ways. (a) It may be applied solely and entirely to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It would then be a special declaration of the Father to the Son. "I have glorified my name in Thy incarnation, Thy miracles, Thy words, Thy works; I will yet glorify it again in Thy voluntary suffering for mankind, Thy death, Thy resurrection, and Thy ascension." Lightfoot thinks there is a special reference to our Lord's conflict with the devil. "I have glorified my name in the victory Thou formerly didst obtain over Satan's temptation in the wilderness. I will glorify my name again, in the victory Thou shalt have in this conflict also." (b) It may be applied to the whole course of God's dealings with creation from the beginning. It would then be a declaration of the Father: "I have continually glorified my name in all the dispensations which have been,— before the flood, in the days of the Patriarchs, in the time of Moses, under the Law, under the Judges, under the Kings. I will yet glorify it once more at the end of this dispensation, by finishing up the types and figures, and accomplishing the work of man's redemption." Which of these views is the true one, I cannot pretend to decide. Either makes excellent divinity, and is reasonable and consistent. But we have no means of ascertaining which is correct. If I have any opinion on the point I lean to the second view. v29.—[The people therefore, etc.] This verse apparently is meant to describe the various opinions of the crowd which stood around our Lord, about the voice which spoke to Him.— Some who were standing at some little distance, and were not listening very attentively, said it thundered. Others, who were standing close by, and paying great attention, declared that an invisible being, an angel, must have spoken.— Both parties entirely agreed on one point: something uncommon had happened. An extraordinary noise had been heard, which to some sounded like thunder, and to others like words. But nobody said they heard nothing at all. That the voice must have been very loud, seems proved by the supposition that it was "thunder." That the reality and existence of angels formed part of the popular creed of the Jews, seems proved by the readiness of some to take up the idea that an angel had spoken. Some think that the Greeks before mentioned, not knowing the Hebrew language, in which probably the voice spoke, fancied the voice was thunder, and the Jews of the crowd thought it an angel's voice. v30.—[Jesus answered...This voice...not...Me...your sakes.] In this verse our Lord tells the Jews the purpose of this miraculous voice. It was not for His sake,— to comfort Him and help Him; but for their sakes,— to be a sign and a witness to them. The voice could tell Him nothing that He did not know. It was meant to show them what they did not know or doubted.— The sentence would be more literally rendered, "Not on account of Me was this voice, but on account of you." It was just one more public miraculous evidence of His Divine mission, and apparently the last that was given. The first evidence was a voice at His baptism, and the last a voice just before His crucifixion. Augustine remarks, "Here Christ shows that this voice was not to make known to Him what He already knew, but to them to whom it was meet to be made known." v31.—[Now is the judgment of this world.] This is undeniably a difficult saying. The difficulty lies principally in the meaning of the word "judgment." (a) Some, as Barnes, think that it means, "This is the crisis, or most important time in the world's history." I cannot receive this. I doubt whether the Greek word used here will ever bear the signification of our word "crisis." That our Lord's atoning death was a crisis in the world's history, is undoubtedly true. But that is not the question. The question is, What do the Greek words mean? (b) Some, as Theophylact, and Euthymius, think it means "Now is the vengeance of this world."— "I will cast out him by whom the world has been enslaved."— I doubt this also. (c) Some, as Zwingle, think that "judgment" means the discrimination or separation between the believing and the unbelieving in the world. (Compare John 9:39.) (d) Some, as Calvin, Brentius, Beza, Bucer, Hutcheson, Flacius, and Gualter, think that "judgment" means the reformation, or setting in right order of the world. (e) Some, as Grotius, Gerhard, Poole, Toletus, and â Lapide, think "judgment" means the deliverance, and setting free from bondage, of this world. (f) Some, as Pearce, think it means, "Now is the Jewish world or nation about to be judged or condemned for rejecting Me." (g) Some, as Bengel, think it means, "Now is the judgment concerning this world, as to who is hereafter to be the rightful possessor of it." I take it that the word we render "judgment," can only mean condemnation, and that the meaning of the sentence is this: "Now has arrived the season when a sentence of condemnation shall be passed by my death on the whole order of things which has prevailed in the world since the creation. The world shall no longer be let alone, and left to the devil and the powers of darkness. I am about to spoil them of their dominion by my redeeming work, and to condemn and set aside the dark, godless order of things which has so long prevailed upon earth. It has been long winked at and tolerated by my Father. The time has come when it will be tolerated no longer. This very week, by my crucifixion, the religious systems of the world shall receive a sentence of condemnation." This seems the view of Bullinger and Rollock, and I agree with it. In order to realize the full meaning of this sentence, we must call to mind the extraordinary condition of all the world with the exception of Palestine, before Christ's death. To an extent of which now we can form no conception, it was a world without God, plunged in idolatry, worshipping devils,— in open rebellion against God. (Compare 1 Corinthians 10:20.) When Christ died, this order of things received its sentence of condemnation. Rollock says, "I understand by this judgment, the condemnation of that sin of which the world was so full when Christ came, and which had reigned from Adam to Moses." Of this undisturbed reign of idolatry Christ's advent made an end. Augustine, on this verse, says: "The devil kept possession of mankind, holding men as criminals bound over to punishment by the handwriting of their sins, having dominion in the hearts of the unbelieving, dragging them, deceived and captive, to the worship of the creature, for which they had deserted the Creator. But by the faith of Christ, confirmed by His death and resurrection, through His blood shed for the remission of sins, thousands of believing persons obtain deliverance from the dominion of the devil, are joined to the body of Christ, and quickened by His Spirit, as faithful members under so great a Head. This it was that He called judgment." [Now shall...prince of this world...cast out.] In this remarkable sentence there can be no doubt that Satan is meant by the "prince of this world." Up to the time of our Lord's redeeming work, the entire world was in a certain sense completely under his dominion. When Christ came and died for sinners, Satan's usurped power was broken, and received a deadly blow. Heathenism and idolatry and devil worship no longer governed all the earth, except Palestine, as they had done for four thousand years, because undisturbed. In a wonderful and mysterious manner Christ on the cross "spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them." (Colossians 2:15.) To this victory our Lord clearly refers. "Now in this week, by my vicarious death as man's Redeemer on the cross, Satan, the Prince of this world, shall receive a deadly blow, and be dethroned from his supremacy over man, and cast out. The head of the serpent shall be bruised." Of course our Lord did not mean that Satan would be "cast out" of this world entirely, and tempt it no more. That will be done at the second advent, we know from Revelation 20:1-15; but it was not done at the first. It only means that he should be cast out of a large portion of the dominion, and power, and undisturbed authority he had hitherto exercised over men's souls.— The result of the change which took place in this respect, when Christ died, is perhaps not enough considered by Christians. We probably have a very inadequate idea of the awful extent to which Satan carried his dominion over men's souls, before the "kingdom of heaven" was set up. Bodily possession, familiar spirits, wizards, heathen oracles, heathen mysteries,— all these are things which before the crucifixion of Christ were much more real and powerful than we suppose. And why? Because the "prince of this world" had not yet been cast out. He had a power over men's bodies and minds far greater than he has now. When Christ came to the cross He did battle with Satan, won a victory over him, stripped him of a large portion of his authority, and cast him out of a large portion of his dominion. Does not the whole of the vision in Revelation 12:7-17, point to this? This view is supported by Lightfoot. This sentence shows clearly the reality and power of the devil. How anyone can say there is no devil, in the face of such expressions as "the prince of this world," is strange. How anyone can scoff and think lightly of a being of such mighty power, is stranger still. The true Christian, however, may always take comfort in the thought that Satan is a vanquished enemy. He was stripped of a large part of his dominion at Christ's first advent. He is still "going to and fro," seeking whom he may devour; but he shall be completely bound at the second advent. (1 Peter 5:8; Romans 16:20; Revelation 20:2.) The whole verse appears to me inexplicable, unless we receive and hold the doctrine of Christ's death being an atonement and satisfaction for man's sin, and a payment of man's debt to God. That thought underlies the deep statement here made of the mighty work about to be done by our Lord, in the week of His crucifixion, against the prince of this world. Once adopt the modern notion that Christ's death was only a beautiful example of self-sacrifice and martyrdom for truth, like that of Socrates, and you can make nothing of this verse. Hold, on the other hand, the old doctrine that Christ's death was the payment of man's debt, and the redemption of man's soul from the power of sin and the devil, and the whole verse is lighted up and made comparatively clear. Augustine observes, "The Lord in this verse was foretelling that which He knew,— that after His passion and glorifying, throughout the whole world many a people would believe, within whose hearts the devil once was, whom when by faith they renounce, then is he cast out." He also says that what formerly took place in a few hearts, like those of the patriarchs and prophets, or very few individuals, is now foretold as about to take place in many a great people. Euthymius remarks, that as the first Adam by eating of the tree was cast out of Paradise, so the Second Adam by dying on the tree cast the devil out of his usurped dominion in the world. Bucer thinks there is a latent reference to our Lord's former words about the "strong man armed keeping his house," till a stronger comes upon him and spoils him. (Luke 11:21-22.) v32.—[And I...lifted up...draw all men unto Me.] In this remarkable verse our Lord plainly points to His own crucifixion, or being lifted up on the cross. It is the same expression that He used with Nicodemus: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up." (John 3:14.) The promise, "I will draw all men unto Me," must, I think, mean that our Lord after His crucifixion would draw men of all nations and kindreds and tongues to Himself, to believe on Him and be His disciples. Once crucified, He would become a great center of attraction, and draw to Himself, and release from the devil's usurped power, vast multitudes of all peoples and countries, to be His servants and followers. Up to this time all the world had blindly hastened after Satan and followed him. After Christ's crucifixion great numbers would turn away from the power of Satan and become Christians. The promise doubtless looks even further than this. It points to a time when every knee shall bow to the crucified Son of God, and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Lord. The whole world shall finally become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ. Of course the words must not be pressed too far. We must not think that they support the deadly heresy of universal salvation. We must not suppose them to mean that all men shall be actually saved by Christ's crucifixion, any more than we must suppose that Christ actually "lights" everyone in the world. (See John 1:9.) The analogy of other texts shows plainly that the only reasonable sense is, that Christ's crucifixion would have a "drawing" influence on men of all nations, Gentiles as well as Jews. Scripture and facts under our eyes, both show us that all persons are not actually drawn to Christ. Many live and die and are lost in unbelief. The word "draw" is precisely the same that is used in John 6:44—"No man can come to Me except the Father draw him." Yet I doubt whether the meaning is precisely the same. In the one case it is the drawing of election, when the Father chooses and draws souls. In the other case, it is the drawing influence which Christ exercises on laboring and heavy-laden sinners, when He draws them by His spirit to come to Him and believe. The subjects of either "drawing" are the same men and women, and the drawing in either case is irresistible. All who are drawn to believe are drawn both by the Father and the Son. Without this drawing no one would ever come to Christ. The idea of some, that the verse may be applied to the "lifting up" or exalting of Christ by ministers in their preaching, is utterly baseless, and a mere play upon words. That the preaching of Christ will always do good, more or less, and draw souls to Christ by God's blessing, is no doubt true. But it is not the doctrine of this text, and ought to be dismissed as an unfair accommodation of Scriptural language. Euthymius observes that the mission of Christ began to draw souls at once, as in the case of the penitent thief and the centurion. v33.—[This He said...what death...die.] This explanatory comment of John on our Lord's words is evidently intended to make His meaning plain. He spoke of "being lifted up" with a special reference to His being lifted up on the cross.— Of course it is just possible that the reference is to the drawing all men, and that it means, "He spoke of drawing all men, with a reference to His death being a sacrificial and atoning death, which would affect the position of all men." But I doubt this being so correct a view as the other. "He should die," is literally, He was "about to die." It is curious that, in the face of this verse, some, as Bucer and Diodati, maintain that our Lord by "being lifted up," refers to His exaltation into heaven after His resurrection. They think that then, and not till then, could He be said to "draw" men. I cannot see anything in this. Our Lord appears to me to teach plainly, that after His crucifixion, and through the virtue of His crucifixion, He would draw men. That "lifting up" means crucifixion is, in my judgment, plainly taught by John 3:14. We may learn, from these verses, the duty of using present opportunities. The Lord Jesus says to us all, "Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you.—While ye have the light believe in the light." Let us not think that these things were only spoken for the sake of the Jews. They were written for us also, upon whom the ends of the world are come. The lesson of the words is generally applicable to the whole professing Church of Christ. Its time for doing good in the world is short and limited. The throne of grace will not always be standing: it will be removed one day, and the throne of judgment will be set up in its place. The door of salvation by faith in Christ will not always be open: it will be shut one day for ever, and the number of God's elect will be completed. The fountain for all sin and uncleanness will not always be accessible: the way to it will one day be barred, and there will remain nothing but the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. These are solemn thoughts: but they are true. They cry aloud to sleeping Churchmen and drowsy congregations, and ought to arouse great searchings of heart. "Can nothing more be done to spread the Gospel at home and abroad? Has every means been tried for extending the knowledge of Christ crucified? Can we lay our hands on our hearts, and say that the Churches have left nothing undone in the matter of missions? Can we look forward to the Second Advent with no feelings of humiliation, and say that the talents of wealth and influence and opportunities have not been buried in the ground?"— Such questions may well humble us, when we look, on one side, at the state of professing Christendom, and, on the other, at the state of the heathen world. We must confess with shame that the Church is not walking worthy of its light. But the lesson of the words is specially applicable to ourselves as individuals. Our own time for getting good is short and limited; let us take heed that we make good use of it. Let us "walk while we have the light." Have we Bibles? Let us not neglect to read them.— Have we the preached Gospel? Let us not linger halting between two opinions, but believe to the saving of our souls.— Have we Sabbaths? Let us not waste them in idleness, carelessness, and indifference, but throw our whole hearts into their sacred employments, and turn them to good account.— Light is about us and around us and near us on every side. Let us each resolve to walk in the light while we have it, lest we find ourselves at length cast out into outer darkness for ever. It is a true saying of an old divine, that the recollection of lost and mis-spent opportunities will be the very essence of hell. We may learn, secondly, from these verses, the desperate hardness of the human heart. It is written of our Lord's hearers at Jerusalem, that, "though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him." We err greatly if we suppose that seeing wonderful things will ever convert souls. Thousands live and die in this delusion. They fancy if they saw some miraculous sight, or witnessed some supernatural exercise of Divine grace, they would lay aside their doubts, and at once become decided Christians. It is a total mistake. Nothing short of a new heart and a new nature implanted in us by the Holy Ghost, will ever make us real disciples of Christ. Without this, a miracle might raise within us a little temporary excitement; but, the novelty once gone, we should find ourselves just as cold and unbelieving as the Jews. The prevalence of unbelief and indifference in the present day ought not to surprise us. It is just one of the evidences of that mighty foundation doctrine, the total corruption and fall of man. How feebly we grasp and realize that doctrine is proved by our surprise at human incredulity. We only half believe the heart's deceitfulness. Let us read our Bibles more attentively, and search their contents more carefully. Even when Christ wrought miracles and preached sermons, there were numbers of His hearers who remained utterly unmoved. What right have we to wonder if the hearers of modern sermons in countless instances remain unbelieving? "The disciple is not greater than his Master." If even the hearers of Christ did not believe, how much more should we expect to find unbelief among the hearers of His ministers. Let the truth be spoken and confessed. Man's obstinate unbelief is one among many indirect proofs that the Bible is true. The clearest prophecy in Isaiah begins with the solemn question, "Who hath believed?" (Isaiah 53:1.) We may learn, thirdly, from these verses, the amazing power which the love of the world has over men. We read that "among the chief rulers many believed on Christ: but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." These unhappy men were evidently convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah. Reason, and intellect, and mind, and conscience, obliged them secretly to admit that no one could do the miracles which He did, unless God was with Him, and that the preacher of Nazareth really was the Christ of God. But they had not courage to confess it. They dared not face the storm of ridicule, if not of persecution, which confession would have entailed. And so, like cowards, they held their peace, and kept their convictions to themselves. Their case, it may be feared, is a sadly common one. There are thousands of people who know far more in religion then they act up to. They know they ought to come forward as decided Christians. They know that they are not living up to their light. But the fear of man keeps them back. They are afraid of being laughed at, jeered at, and despised by the world. They dread losing the good opinion of society, and the favorable judgment of men and women like themselves. And so they go on from year to year, secretly ill at ease and dissatisfied with themselves,—knowing too much of religion to be happy in the world, and clinging too much to the world to enjoy any religion. Faith is the only cure for soul ailments like this. A believing view of an unseen God, an unseen Christ, an unseen heaven, and an unseen judgment-day,—this is the grand secret of overcoming the fear of man. The expulsive power of a new principle is required to heal the disease. "This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (1 John 5:4.) Let us pray for faith, if we would conquer those deadly enemies of souls, the fear of man and the love of man's praise. And if we have any faith, let us pray for more. Let our daily cry be, "Lord, increase our faith." We may easily have too much money, or too much worldly prosperity; but we can never have too much faith. ================== Notes— v34.—[The people answered, etc.] This verse supplies a remarkable instance of the perverse and hardened blindness of the Jews in our Lord's time. They pretended to be unable to reconcile the Lord's language about being "lifted up," with the Old Testament prophecies about the eternity and never dying of Christ.— That "lifted up" meant being put to death on the cross, they seem to have understood. That our Lord, or the Son of man, as He called Himself, claimed to be the Christ, they quite understood. What they stumbled at was the idea of the eternal Christ being put to death. They had got hold of the idea of a glorious, eternal Messiah. They had not got hold of the idea of a suffering, dying Messiah. Of course they were right in holding that "Christ abideth forever." It is the universal doctrine of the Old Testament. (Compare Isaiah 9:7; Psalms 110:4; Ezekiel 37:25; Daniel 7:14; Micah 4:7.) Our Lord had never for a moment denied this. He was the promised Savior, who as Gabriel said to Mary, was to "reign over the house of Jacob for ever." (Luke 1:33.) On the other hand, they were entirely wrong in not understanding that Christ had to suffer before He reigned, and to go to the cross before He wore the crown. They were wrong in not seeing that His sacrifice as our Substitute and our Passover, was the very corner-stone of revealed religion, and that the very "law" of which they made so much, pointed to His sacrifice as clearly as to His eternal glory. They forgot that Isaiah says that Messiah is to be "brought as a lamb to the slaughter," and that Daniel speaks of His being "cut off." (Isaiah 53:7; Daniel 9:26.) The words "we" and "thou," in this verse, in the Greek are emphatic. "WE Jews have always been taught to believe the eternity of Messiah. THOU, on the other hand, sayest that Messiah must be put to death, and lifted up on the cross. How is this? How are we to understand it?" "The law," in this verse, must evidently be taken for the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures. It is worthy of remark that the Jews charge our Lord with saying "the Son of Man must be lifted up." Yet our Lord in the last verse but one had not mentioned the Son of man, but had only said, "I, if I be lifted up."— It is also singular that our Lord nowhere uses the expression "lifted up" except in His conversation with Nicodemus, in John 3:14. We must therefore either suppose that the Jews referred to the saying of Christ when He spoke to Nicodemus (which is very unlikely); or else that the expression "The Son of man must be lifted up" was so frequently on our Lord's lips, that the Jews caught it up and pressed it on Him here; or else that our Lord so frequently spoke of Himself as the Son of man, that when He said, "If I be lifted up," the Jews thought it equivalent to saying "If the Son of man be lifted up." The question,"Who is this Son of man?" can hardly imply that the Jews did not know that Christ was speaking of Himself. Does it not rather mean, "Who, and what kind of a Person dost Thou claim to be, calling Thyself the Son of man, and yet talking of being lifted up on the cross? Dost Thou really mean that one and the same person can be a dying person, and yet also the eternal Christ? Dost Thou claim to be the eternal Christ, and yet talk of being lifted up on a cross? Explain this apparent contradiction, for we cannot understand it."— It is just the old story over again. The Jews could not and would not understand that Messiah was to suffer as well as to reign, to die as a Sacrifice as well as to appear in glory. They could not and would not see that the two things could be reconciled, and could meet in one person. Hence their perplexity exhibited in the question of the text. The title, "Son of man," is first found applied to Messiah in Daniel 7:13. We cannot doubt that the Jews understood and remembered that passage. Let us note that a half knowledge of Scripture, a suppression of some texts, and a misapplication of other texts, will account for a large portion of mistakes in religion. In this way people get a heresy or a crotchet into their heads on some doctrinal point, and seem blind to the truth. No heresies are so obstinately defended, and so difficult to meet, as those which are based on a perverted view of some portion of Scripture. In reading our Bibles, we must be careful to give every part and portion its due weight. Let us remember, before we judge the blindness of the Jews too severely in this place, that many Christians are just as slow to see the whole truth about the second advent of Christ and His coming glory, as the Jews were to see the whole truth about the first advent and the cross. Multitudes apply texts to the first advent which only belong to the second advent, and are just as much prejudiced against the second personal coming of Christ to reign, as the Jews were against the first personal advent to suffer. Not a few Christians, I fear, are ready to say, "We have heard out of the Scriptures that Christ was to come in humiliation to be crucified; and how say ye, then, that Christ must come in power to reign?" The expression, "this," is rather emphatic, and has something contemptuous about it. "We have heard of a Son of man who is eternal. Who is THIS Son of man about to be lifted up on the cross, of whom you speak?" v35.—[Then Jesus said unto them...light with you.] It is noteworthy, that our Lord makes no direct answer to the question of the Jews. He only warns them in a very solemn manner, of the danger they were in of letting their day of grace slip away unimproved. He draws a figure from the light of day, and the acknowledged importance of walking and journeying while we have the light. By "the light" He evidently means Himself. "I, the Light of the world, am only going to be with you a very little longer. My day is drawing to a close. The sun will soon set." (Compare Jeremiah 13:16.) Here, as elsewhere, we see how clearly and distinctly our Lord saw His own approaching death and withdrawal from the world. Ecolampadius thinks that there is a latent connection between this verse and the question of the Jews. "You ask who is this Son of man? I reply that He is the Light of the world, as I have often told you. Like the sun, He is about to be eclipsed, or withdrawn from your eyes very shortly. Make haste, and delay not to believe on Him." Gerhard justly remarks on this sentence, how far from infallibility the best of the Fathers were. Even Augustine, from his slight acquaintance with Greek, renders the sense, "There is yet a little light in your hearts!" A German commentator remarks, that Christ seems here to rebuke this quibbling and questioning about phrases. "There was no time now for sophistry and circumlocution. It was a solemn matter. How differently ought they to demean themselves in their little residue of time, and not to fritter it away with affected contradictions! How earnestly they ought to seek at once for refuge to the light, and shield themselves against coming darkness?" [Walk while ye have the light.] This solemn exhortation was meant to urge the Jews to do for their souls' safety what a wise traveler would do to get safely to his journey's end. "Enter in at the strait gate: walk in the narrow way: flee from the city of destruction: set out on your journey towards eternal life: rise, and be moving, while I and my Gospel are close to you, shining on you, and within your reach." Hengstenberg remarks, that "walking here denotes activity, and stands opposed to an idle and indifferent rest." [Lest darkness come upon you.] Our Lord here warns the Jews of the things to be feared, if they neglected His advice. Darkness would overtake, catch, and come upon them. He would leave the world, and return to His Father. They would be left in a state of judicial darkness and blindness as a nation, and with the exception of an election, would be given over to untold calamities, scattering, and misery. How true these words were we know from the history of the Jews written by Josephus, after our Lord left the world. His account of the extraordinary state of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, during the siege of the city by Titus, is the best commentary on the text before us. The state of the Jews, as a nation, during the last days of Jerusalem, can only be described as "darkness that might be felt." [For he...darkness...knoweth not...goeth.] This is an argument drawn from the acknowledged helplessness of one who attempts a difficult journey in a dark night. He cannot see his way. He only gets into trouble, and perhaps loses his life. This was exactly the case of the Jewish nation, after our Lord left the world. Up to the time of the destruction of the temple, they seemed like a nation of madmen, and a people judicially blinded,— conscious that they were in a wrong position, struggling furiously to get out of it, and yet only plunging deeper into the mire of hopeless misery, till Titus took the city, and carried the whole race into captivity. They had put out their own eyes by rejecting Christ, and were like a strong man blinded, maddened by a sense of his own misery, and yet impotent to get out of it. v36.—[While light...believe...children of light.] This sentence would have been more accurately rendered, "While ye have THE Light;" that is, "while ye have ME, the Light of the world, with you." It is a final, affectionate entreaty to the Jews, repeating in more plain words the exhortation of the last verse, "To walk in the light." It is as though our Lord said, "Once more I beseech you to believe in Me as the Light of the world, while I am with you." The end and object for which they are to believe is also added, "That ye may become my children, have light in your hearts, light in your consciences, light in your lives, light on your present path, light in your future prospects." There can be no doubt that the expression "children of light" is a Hebraism, signifying, "to be brought in close connection with or under the full influence of light." Let us note that here, as elsewhere, believing is the first step,— the one thing needful. The exhortation is still to be offered to every sinner, directly and personally: "Believe, that thou mayest be a child of light." [These things...spake...departed...hide...them.] We know not exactly on what day in the last week of our Lord's life the words just recorded had been spoken. The sentence before us certainly seems to mark a break and interval, and we can hardly suppose that the short address from the forty-fourth verse to the end of the chapter was spoken the same day, or was continuously connected with the discourse ending in this verse. To me it seems probable that our Lord "departed" to Bethany after the miracle of the Voice from the heavens, and the commotion that followed it.— The words of our English version "Did hide Himself," seem to me rather stronger than the Greek warrants. It would be more literally, "Was concealed from them." Whether this was by miracle, as on other occasions, is not clear. Calvin seems to think that our Lord only departed from the hearers immediately round Him, and went to the temple, where He met with another audience of a more believing kind. Flacius, too, thinks it was only a short and temporary withdrawal. Poole on the contrary takes the view that I adopt, and says that our Lord withdrew to Bethany. v37.—[But though...so many miracles...them.] This verse begins a long parenthetical comment which John was inspired to make at this point, on the peculiar unbelief of the Jerusalem Jews. He remarks on the singular hardness of this section of the nation, in the face of the singularly strong evidence which they enjoyed of Christ's Messiahship. The expression, "So many miracles," seems to point out that the miracles recorded by John are by no means all the miracles that our Lord performed in and near Jerusalem. Beside the purifying of the temple, John only records three,— the healing of the impotent man, the healing of the blind, and the raising of Lazarus. (John 5., 9., 11.) Yet John expressly speaks of miracles (both here, and in John 2:23); and the Pharisees say, "This Man doeth many miracles." (John 11:47.) The Greek word rendered "before," is very strong. It is the same that is "In the sight of," in 1 Thessalonians 1:3; and "In the presence of," in 1 Thessalonians 2:19. [Yet they believed not on Him.] In estimating the peculiar hardness and unbelief of the Jews at Jerusalem, it is worth remembering that all experience proves that where there is the greatest quantity of the form of religion, there is often the greatest proportion of formality and unbelief. The places where men become most familiar with the outside and ceremonial of Christianity are precisely the places where the heart seems to become most hard. Witness the state of Rome at this day. Witness too often the state of cathedral cities in our own land. We need not wonder that the city in which was the temple, the daily sacrifice, and the priesthood, was the most unbelieving place in Palestine. v38.—[That...saying...Esaias...fulfilled...spake.] We must not suppose this means that the Jews did not believe in order that the prophecy of Isaiah might be fulfilled. This would be teaching sheer fatalism, and would destroy man's responsibility. The true meaning is, "So that by this unbelief the saying of Isaiah was fulfilled." (See John 5:20; Romans 5:20; 2 Corinthians 1:17.) Chrysostom observes, "It was not because Isaiah spake that they believed not, but because they were not about to believe, that he spake." Augustine says, "The Lord, by the Prophet, did predict the unbelief of the Jews,— predict, however, not cause. It does not follow that the Lord compels any man to sin because He knows men's future sins." Theophylact and Euthymius say much the same. [Lord, who...believed our report.] This question begins the well-known fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, which describes with such extraordinary accuracy our Lord's sufferings. It is certainly a most singular fact, that the very chapter which the Jews in every age have been most obstinately unwilling to believe, should begin with this question. It is a Hebraism tantamount to saying, "Nobody believes our report." The unbelief of the Jews was a thing as clearly foretold in Scripture as the sufferings of Christ. If they had not been unbelieving, the Scriptures would have been untrue. [To whom...arm of...Lord revealed.] The expression, "arm of the Lord," is thought by Augustine to mean Christ Himself. It may be so. If not, it must mean, "To whom is the Lord's power in raising up a Redeemer and an atoning sacrifice revealed?" That is, the Lord's power is revealed to and received by none. The question here again is a Hebraism, equivalent to an assertion. Bullinger observes, that "some might perhaps wonder that the Jews did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. To this John replies, that Isaiah long ago foretold that they would prove an unreasonable and unbelieving nation." The quotation of Isaiah in this place is strong evidence that the fifty-third chapter of this prophecy applies to Christ, and none else. v39.—[Therefore they could not believe, because, etc.] This is undeniably a difficult verse. It cannot of course mean that the Jews were unable to believe, although really desirous to do so, and were prevented by the prophecy of Isaiah. What then can it mean? The following paraphrase is offered: "This was the cause why they could not believe: they were in that state of judicial blindness and hardness which Isaiah had described; they were justly given over to this state because of their many sins: and for this cause they had no power to believe." "Therefore," is literally, "on account of this." It cannot, I think, look backward, but forward. (Compare John 10:17, and John 12:18.) "They could not," is literally, "they were not able." It precisely describes the moral inability of a thoroughly hardened and wicked man to believe. He is thoroughly under the mastery of a hardened and seared conscience, and has, as it were, lost the power of believing.— They had no will to believe, and so they had no power. They could have believed if they would, but they would not, and so they could not.— The expression is parallel to the well-known words, "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him." There the meaning is, "No man has any will to come unless he is drawn, and so no man can come." Even in our own English language the expression, "could not," is sometimes used in the sense of "would not." Thus the brethren of Joseph "hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him." (Genesis 37:4.) The word "because" is a needlessly strong rendering of the Greek. It would be just as correctly translated, "for." Chrysostom observes, "In many places Christ is wont to term choice, power. So, 'The world cannot hate you, but Me it hateth.' So in common conversation a man says, 'I cannot love this or that person," calling the force of his will, power. Augustine says, "If I be asked why they could not believe, I answer in a word, Because they would not."— He also says, "It is said of the Omnipotent, He cannot deny Himself: and this is the power of the Divine will. So 'they could not believe' is the fault of the human will." Zwingle also says that "could not" means "would not." Ecolampadius observes, "They would not, and therefore they could not believe. God is wont to punish those who commit some sin by giving them up to other sins." This, he remarks is the heaviest judgment to which we can be given up,— to have sins punished by sins; that is, by being let alone to commit them. Bishop Hall says, "They could not believe because, as Isaiah says, in a just punishment for their maliciousness and contempt, God had stricken them with a reprobate sense, so that their eyes were blinded." Quesnel says here, "Let us bewail this inability of will, with which by means of Adam's sin we are all born, and which by our own sins we daily increase. Let us continually have recourse to Him who said, 'Without Me ye can do nothing,' and, 'No man can come to Me, unless the Father draw him.' " v40.—[He hath blinded their eyes, etc.] This quotation is a free paraphrase of the general view of a verse in Isaiah 6:9-10. I think it can only have one meaning. That meaning is, that "God had given over the Jews to judicial blindness, as a punishment for their long-continued and obstinate rejection of His warnings." That God does in some cases give people over, as a punishment for obstinate unbelief, and that He may be justly termed the cause of such unbelief, is I think quite plain in Scripture. Pharaoh is a case in point. He obstinately refused God's warnings, and so at last He was given over, and God is said to have "hardened his heart." Compare Joshua 11:20— "It was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might destroy them." (So Deuteronomy 2:30; 1 Samuel 2:25; Romans 9:18.) This is no doubt a very solemn and awful subject. It seems at first sight to make God the author of man's destruction. But surely a moment's reflection will show us that God is a Sovereign in punishing, and may punish in any way he pleases. Some He cuts off suddenly the moment they sin. Others He gives over to judicial blindness, and ceases to strive with their consciences. "The Judge of all the earth will certainly do right." Those whom He is said to "harden and blind" will always be found to be persons whom He had previously warned, exhorted, and constantly summoned to repent. And never is He said to harden and blind, and give men up to judicial hardness and blindness, till after a long course of warnings. This was certainly the case with Pharaoh and with the Jews. The consequence of God blinding and hardening a person, is that he does not "see" his danger with his eyes, or "understand" his position with his heart. The result is that he holds on his way unconverted, and dies without his soul's disease being healed. "Seeing" and "understanding" are essential parts of conversion. No simpler reason can be given why myriads of church-goers continue careless, unaffected, unmoved, and unconverted: they neither "see" nor "understand." God alone can give them seeing eyes and understanding hearts, and ministers cannot. And one solemn reason why many live and die in this state is, that they have resisted God's warnings, and are justly punished already with a judicial blindness and hardness, by Him whom they have resisted. The key to the whole difficulty, after all, lies in the answer we are prepared to give to the question, "Is God just in punishing the sinner?"— The true Christian and honest Bible reader will find no difficulty in answering that question in the affirmative. Once grant that God is just in punishing the ungodly, and there is an end of the problem. God may punish by giving over the obstinate sinner to a reprobate mind, as really as by sentencing him to everlasting fire at the last day. One thing only must never be forgotten. God "willeth not the death of any sinner." He is willing to soften the hardest heart, and to open the blind eyes of the greatest sinner. In dealing with men about their soul, we must never forget this. We may well remind them that by hardened impenitence they may provoke God to give them up. But we must also press on them that God's mercies in Christ are infinite, and that, if they are finally lost, they will have none but themselves to blame. Burgon thinks that the nominative to "blinded" at the beginning of the verse is not God, but "the Jewish people;" and that the meaning is, "This people hath blinded their own eyes." But I cannot see that this idea can be supported by reference to Isaiah, and though it smooths over difficulties, I dare not receive it. Calvin thinks that the passage applies to the hardness by which God punishes the wickedness of an ungrateful people. They are given over justly to an unbelieving and judicially blinded state of mind. Poole observes, "We have this text, than which there is none more terrible, no less than six times quoted in the New Testament. In all places it is quoted and given as a reason for the Jews' unbelief in Christ. (Matthew 13:14-15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; Acts 28:26-27; Romans 11:8.) It is not quoted alike in all places, but for substance it is the same. In the original, Isaiah is made the instrumental cause. Matthew and Luke, in Acts, mention the people themselves as the cause. All the other texts speak of it as God's act. The thing is easily reconciled."— He then says "The Jews first shut their own eyes, and hardened their own hearts. Thus behaving themselves, God judicially gave them up to their own lusts, permitted their hearts to harden, and suffered them to close their own eyes, so that they could not repent, believe, or return. God did not infuse any malice into their hearts, but withdrew His grace from them." Rollock makes the wise and deep remark, that "Darkness does not blind men so much as light, unless God renews their minds by His Spirit." It is of course noteworthy that this quotation is not given literally and exactly as it stands in the Old Testament. But it is particularly mentioned by Surenhusius, in his book upon the quotations in the New Testament, that it was a common thing with the Hebrew doctors to abbreviate texts in quoting them, and to be content with giving the general sense. The abbreviation, therefore, in the text quoted before us, would not strike John's contemporaries as at all extraordinary. Let us not fail to remark how "seeing, understanding, being converted, and being healed," are linked together. v41.—[These things...Esaias...his glory...him.] To see the full force of this verse we should read the sixth chapter of Isaiah in its entirety. We should there see a magnificent description of the Lord's glory, before which even the seraphim veiled their faces. We should observe their cry, "Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of Hosts." We should mark how Isaiah says, "Mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of Hosts." And then let us remember that John says, "Esaias saw Christ's glory, and spake of Christ"!— How any one, in the face of this evidence, can say that Jesus Christ is not very God, it seems hard to understand. Lightfoot thinks that Isaiah in this chapter had a view of the glory which our Lord would have when He came to punish the Jewish nation. He thinks this is pointed out by "the posts of the door being shaken;" by "the temple being filled with smoke;" and by "the cities being wasted." (See Isaiah 6:1-13.) v42.—[Nevertheless...rulers...many believed Him.] Here John mentions a fact which he would have us take together with his account of the hardened unbelief of most of the Jews. There were some who were not so utterly hardened as the rest. They were in a different state of mind: not blind but convinced; not hardened against our Lord, but secretly persuaded that He was the Christ. Many even of the chief people at Jerusalem believed, in their own secret minds, that Jesus was the Christ. This faith no doubt was only the faith of the head, and not of the heart. But they did believe. Let us note that there is often far more going on in people's minds than preachers are aware of. There is much secret conviction. [But because...Pharisees...not confess Him.] They dared not openly confess their faith in our Lord, for fear of the persecution of the Pharisees. They were cowards, and influenced by the fear of man. No wonder that our Lord spoke so strongly in other places about the duty of confessing Him. [Lest...put out of...synagogue.] The thing that they feared was excommunication. We can have little idea perhaps of the extreme dread with which a Jew regarded exclusion from the visible Jewish Church. Unlike ourselves, he knew no other Church in the whole world. To be shut out of this Church was equivalent to being shut out of heaven. The dread of excommunication in the Irish Catholic Church is perhaps the nearest thing to it in our days. v43.—[For...loved...praise...man more...God.] John here tells us plainly the prevailing motive in the minds of the cowardly Jews. They loved above everything to be well thought of by their fellow-men. They thought more of having the good opinion of man than the praise of God. They could not bear the idea of being laughed at, ridiculed, reviled, or persecuted by their fellow-men. To keep in with them and have their praise, they sacrificed their own convictions, and acted contrary to their conscience. How much this feeling injures the soul, is shown by our Lord's words in a former place: "How can ye believe which received honor one from another?" (John 5:44.) Let us remember that all over the world the same miserable motive is still ruining myriads of souls. "The fear of man bringeth a snare." (Proverbs 29:25.) Nothing seems so difficult to overcome as the desire of pleasing man, keeping in with man, and retaining man's praise. Nothing will overcome it but thorough faith. "This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (1 John 5:4.) The expulsive power of a new principle, that makes us see God, Christ, heaven, hell, judgment, eternity, as realities, is the grand secret of getting the victory over the fear of man. Poole says, "They were not willing to part with their great places in the magistracy, which brought them respect, honor, and applause from men. They valued this more than God's praise." These verses throw light on two subjects which we can never understand too well. Our daily peace and our practice of daily watchfulness over ourselves, are closely connected with a clear knowledge of these two subjects. One thing shown in these verses is, the dignity of our Lord Jesus Christ. We find Him saying, "He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me. I am come as a Light into the world, that whosoever believeth on Me should not abide in darkness." Christ's oneness with the Father, and Christ's office, are clearly exhibited in these words. Concerning the unity of the Father and the Son, we must be content to believe reverently what we cannot grasp mentally or explain distinctly. Let it suffice us to know that our Savior was not like the prophets and patriarchs, a man sent by God the Father, a friend of God, and a witness for God. He was something far higher and greater than this. He was in His Divine nature essentially one with the Father; and in seeing Him, men saw the Father that sent Him. This is a great mystery, but a truth of vast importance to our souls. He that casts His sins on Jesus Christ by faith is building on a rock. Believing on Christ, he believes not merely on Him, but on Him that sent Him. Concerning the office of Christ, there can be little doubt that in this place He compares Himself to the sun. Like the sun, He has risen on this sin-darkened world with healing on His wings, and shines for the common benefit of all mankind. Like the sun, He is the great source and center of all spiritual life, comfort, and fertility. Like the sun, He illuminates the whole earth, and no one need miss the way to heaven, if he will only use the light offered for his acceptance. Forever let us make much of Christ in all our religion. We can never trust Him too much, follow Him too closely, or commune with Him too unreservedly. He has all power in heaven and earth. He is able to save to the uttermost all who come to God by Him. None can pluck us out of the hand of Him who is one with the Father. He can make all our way to heaven bright and plain and cheerful; like the morning sun cheering the traveler. Looking unto Him, we shall find light in our understandings, see light on the path of life we have to travel, feel light in our hearts, and find the days of darkness which will come sometimes, stripped of half their gloom. Only let us abide in Him, and look to Him with a single eye. There is a mine of meaning in His words, "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." (Matthew 6:22.) Another thing shown in these verses is, the certainty of a judgment to come. We find our Lord saying, "He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not my words, hath One that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." There is a last day! The world shall not always go on as it does now. Buying and selling, sowing and reaping, planting and building, marrying and giving in marriage,—all this shall come to an end at last. There is a time appointed by the Father when the whole machinery of creation shall stop, and the present dispensation shall be changed for another. It had a beginning, and it shall also have an end. Banks shall at length close their doors forever. Stock exchanges shall be shut. Parliaments shall be dissolved. The very sun, which since Noah's flood has done his daily work so faithfully, shall rise and set no more. Well would it be if we thought more of this day! Rent days, birth days, wedding days, are often regarded as days of absorbing interest; but they are nothing compared to the last day. There is a judgment coming! Men have their reckoning days, and God will at last have His. The trumpet shall sound. The dead shall be raised incorruptible. The living shall be changed. All, of every name and nation, and people and tongue, shall stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. The books shall be opened, and the evidence brought forth. Our true character will come out before the world. There will be no concealment, no evasion, no false coloring. Every one shall give account of himself to God, and all shall be judged according to their works. The wicked shall go away into everlasting fire, and the righteous into life eternal. These are awful truths! But they are truths, and ought to be told. No wonder that the Roman governor Felix trembled when Paul the prisoner discoursed about "righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come." (Acts 24:25.) Yet the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ has no cause to be afraid. For him, at any rate, there is no condemnation, and the last assize need have no terrors. The bias of his life shall witness for him; while the shortcomings of his life shall not condemn him. It is the man who rejects Christ, and will not hear His call to repentance,—he is the man who in the judgment-day will have reason to be cast down and afraid. Let the thought of judgment to come have a practical effect on our religion. Let us daily judge ourselves with righteous judgment, that we may not be judged and condemned of the Lord. Let us so speak and so act as men who will be judged by the law of liberty. (James 2:12.) Let us make conscience of all our hourly conduct, and never forget that for every idle word we must give account at the last day. In a word, let us live like those who believe in the truth of judgment, heaven, and hell. So living, we shall be Christians indeed and in truth, and have boldness in the day of Christ's appearing. Let the judgment day be the Christian's answer and apology when men ridicule him as too strict, too precise, and too particular in his religion. Irreligion may do tolerably well for a season, so long as a man is in health and prosperous, and looks at nothing but this world. But he who believes that he must give account to the Judge of quick and dead, at His appearing and kingdom, will never be content with an ungodly life. He will say, "There is a judgment. I can never serve God too much. Christ died for me. I can never do too much for Him." ================== Notes— v44.—[Jesus cried and said.] The connection between the address which begins here and the preceding verse, is not very plain or easy to understand. Some think that it is a continuation of the address which ended at John 12:36, and that John's comment and explanation in the last seven verses [John 12:37-43] must be regarded entirely as a parenthesis. This is rather an awkward supposition, when we look at John 12:36, and see at the end, "These words spake Jesus and departed, and did hide Himself." Unless we suppose that as He was walking away, "He cried and said, He that believeth on Me," etc., the connection seems incapable of proof. Yet it appears most unlikely that our Lord would have said such things as he was departing. Others, as Theophylact, think that the address before us is an entirely new and distinct one, and delivered on a different day from that ending at the thirty-sixth verse: viz., on the Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, in Passion Week. This certainly appears to me the least difficult view of the subject. It would then mean that the day after the miracle of the voice from heaven, Jesus appeared again publicly in Jerusalem, and "cried and said." However, it is useless to deny that the abrupt manner in which the verse before us and the following verses come in is a difficulty, and one which we know not exactly how to explain. One thing only is very clear: this was probably one of the last public discourses which our Lord delivered in Jerusalem, and forms a kind of conclusion to His ministry in that city. It is a short but solemn winding up of all His public testimony to the Jews. It deserves notice, that some, as Tittman, Stier, Olshausen, Tholuck, Bloomfield, and Alford, consider the whole of the passage, from verse 44 to the end of the chapter, to be not the words of Jesus Christ, but a statement of John the Evangelist himself, concerning the doctrine Jesus taught throughout His ministry, and specially at Jerusalem. From this view, however, I strongly dissent. The beginning, "Jesus cried," etc., seems utterly inconsistent with the theory. There seems no special necessity for adopting it. A plain reader of the chapter would never dream of it. It is worth remarking that the Greek expression, "He cried," is very seldom applied to our Lord in the New Testament. It is found in Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:39; John 7:28-37, and here. In every instance it means a loud cry, such as anyone uses to call attention to what he has to say. Flacius thinks that the address beginning here is a kind of peroration and summing up of all our Lord's public teaching to the Jews. In it He repeats the proclamation of His own Divine office and dignity,— the purpose for which He came, to be a "light,"— the danger of neglecting His testimony,— the certainty of a final judgment,— and the direct procession of His doctrine from the Father. [He that believeth...Me...Him that sent Me.] This remarkable expression seems meant to proclaim for the last time, the great truth so often insisted on by our Lord,—the entire unity between Himself and the Father. Once more Jesus declares that there is such a complete and mysterious oneness between Himself and the Father, that he who believes on Him, believes not only on Him, but on Him that sent Him.— Of course the sentence cannot literally mean that the man who believes on Christ, does not believe on Christ. But according to a mode of speech not uncommon in the New Testament, our Lord taught that all who in obedience to His call put their trust in Him, would find that they were not trusting in the Son only, but in the Father also.—In short, to trust in the Son, the sent Savior of sinners, is to trust also in the Father, who sent Him to save. The Son and the Father cannot be divided, though they are distinct Persons in the Trinity; and faith in the Son gives an interest in the Father. (Compare John 5:24—"He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent Me." And 1 Peter 1:21—"Who by Him do believe in God.") To draw a wide line of separation between the Father and the Son, as some do, and to represent the Father as an angry Being whom the Son appeases, is very poor theology, and the high road to Tritheism. The true doctrine is that the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one, and that in the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons, and yet that there is such entire unity between the Persons that He who believes in the Son believes also in the Father. Zwingle thinks the latent idea is, "Do not think it is a small and insignificant thing to believe on Me. To believe on Me is the same thing as believing on God the Father, and to know Me is to know the Father." Bucer seems to think that the address in this verse was meant to encourage those who believed Christ to be the Messiah, but were afraid of confessing Him, to come forward boldly, and acknowledge their belief. Poole says, that in like manner God says to Samuel, "They have not rejected thee, but have rejected Me," meaning not thee alone. (1 Samuel 8:7.) v45—[And he...seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me.] This deep and mysterious verse proclaims even more distinctly than the last verse, the unity of the Father and the Son. It cannot mean that any one who saw Christ with his bodily eyes, did, in so seeing, behold the First Person in the Trinity. Such beholding we are distinctly told is impossible. He is one "whom no man hath seen or can see." (1 Timothy 6:16.) What our Lord seems to mean is this: "He that seeth Me seeth not Me only, as an ordinary man or a Prophet, like John the Baptist. In seeing Me he beholds One who is one with the Father, the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His Person." (Hebrews 1:3.) Of course our Lord did not literally mean, "He that sees Me does not see Me." But He meant, "He that sees Me sees not only Me, but through Me and by Me he sees Him that sent Me, for we cannot be divided." The divinity of Jesus Christ seems incontrovertibly proved by this verse and the preceding one. If to believe in Christ is to believe in the Father, and to see Christ is to see the Father, then Jesus Christ must be equal with the Father,—very and eternal God. The supposition of some, that the first "seeth" in this verse means nothing more than "seeth by faith," appears rather incredible. At this rate the verse would be only a repetition of the one preceding it. I prefer the idea that "seeth" means literally, "Seeth with his bodily eyes." Yet Bengel says that "seeth" refers to that vision which faith accompanies, and compares it to John 6:40. The object our Lord had in view in this and the preceding verse, appears to have been twofold. It was partly to proclaim once more the unity of Himself and the Father. It was partly to encourage all believers in Himself, for the last time, before He was crucified. Let them know that in resting their souls on Him, they were resting not on Him alone who was about to die on Calvary, but on One who was one with the Father, and therefore were resting on the Father. Chrysostom observes on the expression, "seeth Him that sent me,"—"What then? Is God a body? By no means. The seeing of which Jesus here speaks is that of the mind, thence showing the consubstantiality." Barnes observes, that this language could not have been used about any mere man. To say it of Paul or Isaiah would have been blasphemy. v46.—[I am come a light into the world, etc.] In this sentence our Lord proclaims once more the great end and object of His coming into the world. He does it by using His favorite figure of light, and comparing Himself to the sun.—"I have come into a world full of darkness and sin, to be the source and center of life, peace, holiness, happiness to mankind; so that every one who receives and believes in Me, may be delivered from darkness and walk in full light." Let us note that the form of language used here seems to teach that our Lord existed before He entered the world. The saints "are the light of the world," but they do not "come a light into the world." This could only be said of Christ, who was light before His incarnation, just as the sun exists and shines before it rises above the eastern horizon. Let us note that our Lord's language seems to teach that He came to be a common Savior and Messiah for all mankind, just as the sun shines for the good of all. It is as though He said, "I have arisen on the world like the sun in the firmament of heaven, in order that every one who is willing to believe in Me should be delivered from spiritual darkness, and be enabled to walk in the light of spiritual life." Once more we may remember that none could give such a majestic description of His mission, but one who knew and felt that He was very God. We never find Moses, or John the Baptist, or Paul, or Peter using such language as this. The quantity of precious truth taught and implied in this verse is very note-worthy.—The world is in darkness.—Christ is the only light.—Faith is the only way to have interest in Christ.—He that believeth no longer abides in darkness, but has spiritual light.—He that does not believe remains and continues in a state of darkness, the prelude to hell. The expression, "not abide in darkness," seems to have a latent reference to those Jews who were convinced of Christ's Messiahship, but were afraid to confess Him openly. Such persons are here exhorted not to remain, stick fast, and continue in darkness. Burgon remarks on this verse, "This verse shows that (1) Christ existed before His incarnation, even as the sun exists before it appears above the eastern hills; (2) that Christ is the one Savior of the world, even as there is only one sun; (3) that He came not for one nation, but for all, as the sun shines for all the world." v47.—[And if any...hear...believe not.] Having shown the privilege of those who believe in Him, our Lord now shows the danger and ruin of those who hear His teaching and yet believe not. [I judge him not.] These words can only mean, "I judge him not now." To put more on them would contradict the teaching of other places, where Christ is spoken of as the Judge of all at the last day. Our Lord's meaning evidently is to teach that His First Advent was not for judgment, but for salvation, not to punish and smite as a conqueror, but to heal and save as a physician. [For I am not...judge...save the world.] These words are an expansion and explanation of the preceding sentence, "I judge him not." They are evidently meant to correct the Jewish impression that Messiah was to come only to judge, to execute vengeance, to smite down His enemies, and to punish His adversaries. This impression arose from misapplied views of the Second Advent and the judgment yet to come. Our Lord, for the last time, declares that He came for no such purpose. Wicked as unbelief was, He did not come to punish it now. He came not as a judge at His First Advent, but as a Savior. We must take care, however, that we do not misinterpret this sentence. It affords no countenance to the dangerous doctrine of universal salvation. It does not mean that Christ came in order to actually save from hell all the inhabitants of the whole world. Such a meaning would flatly contradict many other plain passages of Scripture. What then does it mean? It means that our Lord came at His First Advent not to be a judge, but a Savior, not to inflict punishment, but to provide mercy. He came to provide salvation for all the world, so that anyone in the world may be saved. But no one gets any benefit from this salvation excepting those that believe.—The true key to the meaning of the sentence is the contrast between Christ's first coming and His second one. The first was to set up a throne of grace; the second will be to set up a throne of judgment. The expression in John 3:17 is precisely parallel: "God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." If it were lawful to coin a word, the true exposition of the sentence would be, "I came that the world might be salvable." But while I say all this, I am unable to see how such expressions as this, and John 3:16-17, can possibly be reconciled with an extreme view of particular redemption. To say, on the one hand, that Christ's death is efficacious to none but the elect and believers, is strictly true. Not all men are finally saved by Christ. There is a hell, and unbelievers and impenitent people will be found there.—But to say, on the other hand, that in no sense did Christ do anything at all for the whole world, but that He did everything for the elect alone, seems to me utterly irreconcilable with this text. Surely Christ came to provide a salvation sufficient for the whole "world." I am aware that the advocates of an extreme view of particular redemption say that "the world" here does not mean "the world," but the elect of all nations, as compared to the Jews. But this view is not satisfactory, and looks very [much] like an evasion of the plain meaning of words. Why the same Greek word is rendered by our English translators, "judge" in this verse, and "condemn" in the parallel place in John 3:17, it is not easy to see. v48.—[He that rejecteth Me...receiveth not my words...judgeth him.] In this verse our Lord declares positively the future judgment and condemnation of those who reject Him, and refuse to believe His teaching.—The word we render "rejecteth," is only used here in John's Gospel. The idea is that of "despising: setting at naught." (See Luke 10:16.) The person described is one who despises and sets at naught Christ Himself, after seeing Him, and deliberately refuses to acknowledge Him as the Messiah, in spite of all the evidence of His miracles. He is also one who will not receive and take into his heart the doctrines preached by Christ. In short, he despises His person, and refuses to believe His teaching. "Such a man will find at last, though I punish him not now, that there is a judgment and condemnation of him. He will not find that his rejection of Me, and his unbelief, will go unpunished. He has a Judge prepared already. There is one already, though he knows it not, who will witness against him and condemn him." [The word...I have spoken...judge him...last day.] Our Lord here declares that the things He publicly preached to the Jews while He was upon earth, would witness finally against those who did not believe, at the last day, and be their condemnation. They will not then be able to deny that they were words of wisdom, words of mercy, words subversive of their false views, words fully explaining Christ's kingdom, words entirely in accordance with the Scriptures. And the result will be that they will be speechless. The witness of Christ's words will be unanswerable, and in consequence of that witness they will be condemned. We see here that the words of those who speak for God are not thrown away because they seem not believed at the time. Christ's words, though despised and rejected by the Jews, did not fall to the ground. Those whom they did not save they will condemn. There will be a resurrection of all faithful sermons at the last day.—Great is the responsibility of preachers! Their words are always doing good, or adding to the condemnation of the lost. They are a savor of life to some, and of death to others. Great is the responsibility of hearers! They may ridicule and despise sermons, but they will find to their cost at last, that they must give account of all they hear. The very sermons they now despise may be witnesses against them to their eternal ruin. Let us note that our Lord speaks of judgment and the last day as great realities. Let us take care that we always account them such, and live accordingly. The Christian's best answer to those who ridicule his religion is to say, "I believe in a judgment and a last day." Let us note that condemnation is taken for granted, if not directly expressed, as the portion of some at the last day. Then let us not listen to those who say that there is no future punishment, and that all persons of all characters, both good and bad, are at last going to heaven. Zwingle remarks that the expression, "My word shall judge," is parallel to such expressions as, "The law puts a man to death," though it is not actually the law, but the executioner that does it. The law only shows him to be worthy of death. So the works and words of Christ will show the unbelieving to be worthy of judgment and condemnation. v49.—[For I have not spoken of myself.] In these words our Lord once more, as if for the last time, declares that mighty truth which we find so often in John,—the intimate union between Himself and His Father. "I have not spoken of myself, of my own independent mind, and without concert with my Father in heaven." The object of saying this is evident. Our Lord would have the Jews know what a serious sin it was to refuse His words, and not believe them. In so doing men did not refuse the words of a mere man, or a prophet, like Moses or John the Baptist. They were refusing the words of Him who never spake alone, but always in closest union with the Father. To refuse to receive the words of Christ, was to reject not merely His words, but the words of God the Father. Here, as in many other places in John's Gospel, the Greek does not mean, "I have not spoken concerning myself, but out of or from myself." [But the Father...gave...commandment...speak.] Here our Lord explains and enforces more fully what He said of "not speaking from Himself." He declares that when He came into the world, the Father gave Him a "commandment," or a commission, as to what He should say and speak to men. The things that He had spoken were the result of the eternal counsels of the ever blessed Trinity. The works that He had done were works which the Father gave Him to do. The words which He spoke were words which the Father gave Him to speak. Both in His doing and speaking nothing was left to chance, unforeseen, unprovided, or unpremeditated. All was arranged by perfect wisdom, both His words and His works. When we read of the Father "sending" Christ, and giving Christ a "commandment," we must carefully dismiss from our minds all idea of any inferiority to God the Father on the part of God the Son. The expressions are used in condescension to our weak faculties, to convey the idea of perfect oneness. We are not speaking of the relation that exists between two human beings like ourselves, but between the Persons in the Divine Trinity.—The "sending" of the Son was the result of the eternal counsel of that blessed Trinity, in which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are co-equal and co-eternal. The eternal Son was as willing to be "sent" as the eternal Father was to "send" Him.—The "commandment" given by the Father to the Son as to what He should teach and do, was not a commandment in which the Son had no part but to obey. It was simply the charge or commission arranged in the covenant of redemption, by all three Persons in the Trinity, which the Son was as willing to execute as the Father was willing to give. The distinction between "say" and "speak" in the Greek is not very clear. Burgon thinks the phrase is meant to include "every class of discourse; as well the words of familiar intercourse, as the grave and solemn addresses." But I am not satisfied that this can be proved.—À. Lapide says that "to say is to teach and publish a thing gravely, and to speak is to utter a thing familiarly." Bengel, however, distinguishes them in precisely the contrary way! There certainly seems to be an intention in the verse to refer the Jews to the well-known words of Deuteronomy, concerning the Prophet like unto Moses. "I will raise up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words into His mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him." Our Lord's hearers, familiar from their infancy with Scripture, would see at once that Jesus claimed to be the promised Prophet. The Father's words were in His mouth. He spoke what was commanded Him. (See Deuteronomy 18:18.) v50.—[And I know...His commandment...life everlasting.] The meaning of this sentence seems to be: "I know, whether you like to believe it or not, that this message, commandment, or commission, which I have from my Father, is life everlasting to all who receive it, and believe. You, in your blindness, see no beauty or excellence in the message I bring, and the doctrine I preach. But I know that in rejecting it you are rejecting life everlasting."—Thus Peter says to our Lord, "Thou hast the words of eternal life" (John 6:68): that is, we know Thou hast a commission to proclaim and publish eternal life.—Thus our Lord says, "The words that I speak are spirit and life." (John 6:63.) Poole and others say this sentence means, "I know that the way to life everlasting is to keep His commandments." But I cannot think this is the meaning. Hall paraphrases the sentence, "The doctrine which by His commandment I preach unto you, is that which will surely bring you to everlasting life." [Whatsoever I speak...as Father...so I speak.] This sentence seems intended to wind up our Lord's public discourses to the unbelieving Jews at Jerusalem. "Whatsoever things I am teaching now, or have spoken to you all through my ministry, are things which the Father gave to Me to speak to you. I am only speaking to you what the Father said to Me. If therefore you reject or refuse my message, know once more, for the last time, that you are rejecting a message from God the Father Himself. I speak nothing but what the Father said to Me. If you despise it, you are despising the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob." Let us remember that the holy boldness of this last verse should be a pattern to every minister and preacher of the Gospel. Such a man ought to be able to say confidently, "I know, and am persuaded, that the message I bring is life everlasting to all who believe it; and that, in saying what I do, I say nothing but what God has showed me in His Word." END OF VOL. II. (Note: This begins "Volume 3" of Ryle's Expository thoughts. The Preface to this volume is placed below, after "Notes"; please scroll down to read the Volume 3 Preface.) The passage we have now read begins one of the most interesting portions of John's Gospel. For five consecutive chapters we find the Evangelist recording matters which are not mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. We can never be thankful enough that the Holy Ghost has caused them to be written for our learning! In every age the contents of these chapters have been justly regarded as one of the most precious parts of the Bible. They have been the meat and drink, the strength and comfort of all true-hearted Christians. Let us ever approach them with peculiar reverence. The place whereon we stand is holy ground. We learn, for one thing, from these verses, what patient and continuing love there is in Christ's heart towards His people. It is written that "having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end." Knowing perfectly well that they were about to forsake Him shamefully in a very few hours, in full view of their approaching display of weakness and infirmity, our blessed Master did not cease to have loving thoughts of His disciples. He was not weary of them: He loved them to the last. The love of Christ to sinners is the very essence and marrow of the Gospel. That He should love us at all, and care for our souls,— that He should love us before we love Him, or even know anything about Him,— that He should love us so much as to come into the world to save us, take our nature on Him, bear our sins, and die for us on the cross,— all this is wonderful indeed! It is a kind of love to which there is nothing like among men. The narrow selfishness of human nature cannot fully comprehend it. It is one of those things which even the angels of God "desire to look into." It is a truth which Christian preachers and teachers should proclaim incessantly, and never be weary of proclaiming. But the love of Christ to saints is no less wonderful, in its way, than His love to sinners, though far less considered. That He should bear with all their countless infirmities from grace to glory,— that He should never be tired of their endless inconsistencies and petty provocations,— that He should go on forgiving and forgetting incessantly, and never be provoked to cast them off and give them up,— all this is marvelous indeed! No mother watching over the waywardness of her feeble babe, in the days of its infancy, has her patience so thoroughly tried, as the patience of Christ is tried by Christians. Yet His longsuffering is infinite. His compassions are a well that is never exhausted. His love is "a love that passeth knowledge." Let no man be afraid of beginning with Christ, if he desires to be saved. The chief of sinners may come to Him with boldness, and trust Him for pardon with confidence. This loving Savior is One who delights to "receive sinners." (Luke 15:2.) Let no man be afraid of going on with Christ after he has once come to Him and believed. Let him not fancy that Christ will cast him off because of failures, and dismiss him into his former hopelessness on account of infirmities. Such thoughts are entirely unwarranted by anything in the Scriptures. Jesus will never reject any servant because of feeble service and weak performance. Those whom He receives He always keeps. Those whom He loves at first He loves at last. His promise shall never be broken, and it is for saints as well as sinners: "Him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out." (John 6:37.) We learn, for another thing, from these verses, what deep corruption may sometimes be found in the heart of a great professor of religion. It is written that "the devil put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray Christ." This Judas, we must always remember, was one of the twelve Apostles. He had been chosen by Christ Himself, at the same time with Peter, James, John, and their companions. For three years he had walked in Christ's society, had seen His miracles, had heard His preaching, had experienced many proofs of His loving-kindness. He had even preached himself and wrought miracles in Christ's name; and when our Lord sent out His disciples two and two, Judas Iscariot no doubt must have been one of some couple that was sent. Yet here we see this very man possessed by the devil, and rushing headlong to destruction. On all the coasts of England there is not such a beacon to warn sailors of danger as Judas Iscariot is to warn Christians. He shows us what length a man may go in religious profession, and yet turn out a rotten hypocrite at last, and prove never to have been converted. He shows us the uselessness of the highest privileges, unless we have a heart to value them and turn them to good account. Privileges alone without grace save nobody, and will only make hell deeper. He shows us the uselessness of mere head-knowledge. To know things with our brains, and be able to talk and preach and speak to others, is no proof that our own feet are in the way of peace. These are terrible lessons: but they are true. Let us never be surprised if we see hypocrisy and false profession among Christians in modern days. There is nothing new in it, nothing peculiar, nothing that did not happen even among Christ's own immediate followers, and under Christ's own eyes. Bad money is a strong proof that there is good coin somewhere. Hypocrisy is a strong indirect evidence that there is such a thing as true religion. Above all, let us pray daily that our own Christianity may at any rate be genuine, sincere, real and true. Our faith may be feeble, our hope dim, our knowledge small, our failures frequent, our faults many. But at all events let us be real, and true. Let us be able to say with poor, weak, erring Peter, "Thou, Lord, who knowest all things, knowest that I love Thee." (John 21:17.) ================== Notes— There are peculiarities in John's narrative of the end of our Lord's life on earth, which seem to require a few introductory remarks before entering into the substance of the thirteenth chapter. A careful reader of the four Gospels can hardly fail to remark, that in John's account of the last six days of our Lord's ministry, many things mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are entirely omitted. The parables of the two sons,— of the householder who let out a vineyard,— of the wedding garment,— of the ten virgins,— of the talents,— of the sheep and goats, are left out. The second cleansing of the temple,— the cursing of the barren fig-tree,— the public discussion with the chief priests and elders about John's baptism,— the silencing of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the lawyers,— the public denunciation to the multitude of the Scribes and Pharisees,— all these interesting matters are found in the first three Gospels, but passed over in silence in the fourth. We cannot doubt that there were wise reasons. But the most striking thing in John's narrative at this point, is the entire absence of our Lord's famous prophecy upon the Mount of Olives, and of the institution of the Lord's Supper. Both these deeply interesting portions of our Lord's last doings before His crucifixion, which are most fully given in the first three Gospels, are completely omitted in the fourth. The reason of these two remarkable omissions we are left to conjecture. "God giveth no account of His matters." If we once admit that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, we need not doubt that the Gospel writers were equally guided and directed by the Holy Ghost, both in the things they omitted and the things they recorded. Nevertheless a few remarks on the subject may be interesting to some readers. (a) Concerning the omission of the prophecy on the Mount of Olives, I venture the following conjecture. I think it is partly accounted for by the time when John's Gospel was given to the Church. That must have been very near the taking of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, and the complete overthrow of the Jewish ceremonial. Now if John had just at this crisis inserted anew this prophecy in his Gospel, it would have confirmed the erroneous notion which many have always held, that it refers only to the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not extend to the second advent of Christ, and the end of the world. His marked silence about it would be a testimony against the misapplication of the prophecy. The second reason of the omission, I think, is the striking fact that the writer of the fourth Gospel was inspired to write the Book of Revelation. No wonder, therefore, that he was directed to pass over our Lord's prophecy, when he was about to write at a later date the most striking prophetical book in the Bible. (b) Concerning the omission of the Lord's Supper, I venture the following conjecture. I think it was specially intended to be a witness for ever against the growing tendency of Christians to make an idol of the sacraments. Even from the beginning there seems to have been a disposition in the Church to make Christianity a religion of forms and ceremonies rather than of heart, and to exalt outward ordinances to a place which God never meant them to fill. Against this teaching John was raised up to testify. The mere fact that in his Gospel he leaves out the Lord's Supper altogether, and does not even name it, is strong proof that the Lord's Supper cannot be, as many tell us, the first, foremost, chief, and principal thing in Christianity. Its perfect silence about it can never be reconciled with this favourite theory. It is a most conspicuous silence, which the modern advocates of the so-called sacramental system, can never get over or explain away. If the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper really is the first and chief thing in Christianity, why does John tell us nothing about it? To that question I can only see one answer : it is because it is not a primary, but a secondary thing in Christ's religion. The reason assigned for the omission by many commentators, viz., that John thought it needless to repeat the account of the institution, after it had been recorded by three evangelists and Paul, appears to me entirely insufficient. v1.—[Now before...passover.] We should observe that the feast of the passover is always carefully mentioned by each Gospel writer, as the precise time of the year when Jesus was crucified. It was ordered of God that it should be at this particular time, for two good reasons. For one thing, the passover lamb was the most striking and remarkable type in the whole Jewish ceremonial of Christ Himself, and the history of the passover of Christ's work of redemption. For another thing, it secured the greatest assembly of Israelites to be eye-witnesses of our Lord's crucifixion. At no time of the Jewish year were so many Jews gathered at Jerusalem. Anything that happened at the passover would be reported by Jewish worshippers, on returning home, all over the civilized world. For these two reasons "the Lamb of God" was slain at this feast, in spite of the priests, who said, "Not on the feast day." Let us remember that one of the few dates we know for certainty of the events in our Lord's life, is the time of His crucifixion. Of the time of His birth and baptism we know nothing. But that he died at Easter, we may be quite sure. [When Jesus knew...hour...come.] Let us note that our Lord knew perfectly beforehand when and how He should suffer. This, whatever we may think, is a great addition to suffering. Our ignorance of things before us is a great blessing. Our Lord saw the cross clearly before Him, and walked straight up to it. His death was not a surprise to Him, but a voluntary, foreknown thing. [That...depart...world...Father.] Let us observe how death is spoken of here. It is taking a journey— a going from one place to another. In the case of our Lord, it was a return to His Father's house, and a going home, after finishing the work He came to do. So a believer's death, in a lower sense, is going home. Calvin observes, "This definition of death belongs to the whole body of the Church. It is to the saints a passage to the Father, an inlet to eternal life." [Having loved his own...world..loved...end.] The meaning of this seems to be, "Having always loved His own disciples, and having given many proofs of His singular affection, He now, before leaving them alone like orphans in the world, gave one more striking proof of His love by washing their feet, and thus on the last evening before His death, showed that He loved them to the very end of His ministry, and was not weary of them." He knew perfectly that they were going to forsake Him and act like cowards, but that did not prevent Him loving them, with all their weakness, to the very end. He knew perfectly that He was about to suffer within twenty-four hours, but the knowledge and foresight of it did not absorb his thoughts so as to make Him forget His little flock of followers. Saints, when they are dying, often ask to be left alone and let alone; Christ, on the trial of His crucifixion, thought of others, and loved his disciples to the end. The love of Christ to Christians who really believe on Him, is a great depth. "It passeth knowledge." It is something that our poor corrupt nature cannot fully comprehend or measure. The expression, "His own," applied to believers, is very noteworthy. They are Christ's peculiar property, given to Him by the Father, and His own special care as members of His body. Tittman's idea that "His own" means all mankind, is preposterous and weak, and ignores the privileges of believers. The expression, "which were in the world," is another great depth. Believers are not in heaven yet, and find it out to their cost. They are in a cold, unkind, persecuting world. Let them take comfort in the thought, that Jesus knows and remembers it. "I know thy works, and where thou dwellest." (Revelation 2:13.) Theophylact thinks that our Lord purposely deferred this act of washing the disciples' feet to the last evening of His ministry, in order to leave in their minds a pleasant impression of His love and condescension. Melancthon shows that the three greatest marks of pity and compassion are (1) to tolerate the wicked for a season; (2) to abstain from exposing their sins as long as possible; (3) to warn them plainly and gently before leaving them for ever. All this appears in our Lord's dealing with Judas in this chapter. v2.—[And supper being ended.] These words would have been more literally rendered, "while supper was going on," or, "supper being in progress." That this is the true meaning seems clear from the twenty-sixth verse. If supper had really been ended, we should not have heard of a sop being given out of the dish, etc. It is only fair to say that Scaliger and other learned men insist that the Jews had more than one supper at the passover,— one a legal one, strictly according to ritual; the other a social one. They think these two suppers are both in this chapter. Gerhard gives this opinion at length. Whitby seems to lean to this view, and maintains that our Lord twice pointed out Judas as the traitor,— once privately and once publicly. Let it be noted that our Lord's ministry ended with a supper,— that the last ordinance He appointed was a supper,— that one promise He has left to a believer is, "I will come and sup with him" (Revelation 3:20),— and that the first thing that will take place at His second advent will be the marriage supper of the Lamb. All point to the same great truth,— the close union, familiarity, and comfortable intimacy between Christ and His people. It is a thing far too little known. What supper this was we are not told, and are left to conjecture. It is a point on which opinions widely differ. Some, as Lightfoot, think that the supper was the same that took place at Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, two days before the passover. Rollock also thinks it was not the passover. Others think it was the ordinary passover supper, which our Lord was eating with His disciples the night before His crucifixion. This certainly, in my judgment, seems the more probable view. One thing at any rate is pretty clear. It was not the institution of the Lord's Supper. It seems highly improbable that the washing of the disciples' feet would take place after the Lord's Supper. That blessed ordinance appears to come in after the twentieth verse. Brentius stands alone in maintaining that it was the Lord's Supper. [The devil...put...heart.] This does not mean that Judas now for the first time left the faith, and became an apostate. Our Lord long before had spoken of him as one that "was a devil." (John 6:70.) But it means that now at length the devil suggested into the heart of this unhappy man the atrocious idea of betraying his Master. It was the last and final heading up of his apostasy. The personality of Satan, and his old character as the father of all wickedness, are forcibly brought out here. The word rendered "put" is literally "cast." This graphically describes the way in which Satan works. He casts into the heart of those he tempts the seeds of evil. The heart is the seed-plot which he sows. Suggestion is one of his chief weapons. The sin of man consists in opening his heart to the suggestion, giving it a place, and letting it sink down. This is obvious in the first temptation of Eve in the garden of Eden. Tittman's idea that the expression is only a "popular form of speaking," is utterly untenable, and cannot be reconciled with the general teaching of the Bible about the devil. [Judas Iscariot, Simon's son.] Here, as in three other places, the false apostle is called emphatically "Simon's son." Doubtless this was to mark him out as not the Judas who was brother of James and son of Alphaeus. Who this Simon was we do not know. (See note on John 6:71.) [To betray him.] There seems no need for regarding Judas's betrayal of his Master as anything but the wicked act of a wicked man, who loved money more than his soul. The theory that he was a high-minded, impatient disciple, who wished his Master no harm, but desired to hasten His kingdom, and expected Him to work a miracle, and save Himself at the last, is ingenious, but lacks foundation. Our Lord's word applied to him, "a devil," and the word of John, "a thief," appear to me to overturn the theory altogether. Judas betrayed Jesus because he loved money better than his Master. He probably did not realize the full consequence of his act. But this is often the case with wicked men. v3.—[Jesus, knowing that the Father, etc.] The reason why this verse comes in here is not very plain. Why are we told that Jesus "washed His disciples' feet," knowing all these wonderful things? What is the special point and object of the sentence? Some think that the words mean that our Lord knew the end of His ministry was at hand, that all His work was accomplished, that the Father had now committed to Him all power in heaven and earth, and that having come from God, He was about to return to God very shortly. Knowing this, He seized the last opportunity that remained to give His disciples a practical example of love and humility. He knew that His time was short, and that He must give the lesson this night, if it was to be given at all. Others, as Chrysostom, Augustine, and Zwingle, think that the object of the words is to show the extent and depth of our Lord's infinite condescension and love to His disciples. With a full knowledge that the Father had committed all power into His hands, that He had been from eternity with God, and was going back to God,— knowing all the dignity and majesty of His person and office, He yet condescended to perform the most menial office, and to minister like a servant to His disciples. Either view is good sense and good divinity, and admissible as a fair interpretation of the words. For myself I prefer the latter view. Theophylact points out that to argue our Lord's inferiority to the Father from the expression, "Delivered all things into His hand," is unfair. He justly remarks that you might as well infer the Father's inferiority to the Son from the expression in Corinthians, "When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to the Father." Bernard remarks, that "Jesus came from God, not leaving Him, and went to God, not leaving us." v4.—[He riseth from supper, etc.] The minuteness with which every action of our Lord is related here is very striking. No less than seven distinct things are named,— rising, laying aside garments, taking a towel, girding Himself, pouring water into a basin, washing, and wiping. This very particularity stamps the whole transaction with reality, and is the natural language of an astonished and admiring eye-witness. The "laying aside garments" of course only means the laying aside the long, loose, outer garment which people in the East always wear, and which must be laid aside if any bodily exertion is used. The "girding Himself" refers to the well-known practice of tying tightly round the person any loose garment before taking any action requiring bodily exertion. A good servant is said to have "his loins girded and his lamp burning," ready for any errand or duty. The likeness between our Lord's action here and the words in Luke 12:37, are very striking: "He shall gird Himself— serve them," etc. Jansenius remarks, that the "rising" here mentioned seems like a clear proof that this supper could not be the paschal supper. That was to be eaten standing. The use of the present tense all through this description is noteworthy. It brings the whole transaction before us like a picture. Hengstenberg says here, "Jesus had seated Himself at the table, and Peter probably enjoyed the honour of washing His feet. After this he, with the other disciples, sat down also at table, expecting that the younger would spontaneously assume the function of feetwasher for all the rest. But pride evoked pride. The younger Apostles, following a quick impulse, seated themselves also at table. Thus a situation of deep embarrassment resulted in murmuring and contest. Who would be the first to rise up again? Jesus put an end to the embarrassment, by rising from supper and washing the feet of His disciples." This is possible; but it is only conjecture. v5.—[After that he poureth water, etc., etc.] Wonderful as all this transaction seems, and no doubt is, when we remember who our Lord was, one thing must never be forgotten. The actions here described would not seem nearly so strange to the disciples as they do to us. They were simply the courteous actions of a host who desired to show the utmost degree of hospitable attention to the guests. Thus Abraham washed the feet of the three angelic messengers. (Genesis 18:4. So also 1 Samuel 25:41.) In a hot country like Palestine, where people wore no stockings, and the heat was very scorching to the skin, frequent washing of the feet was an absolute necessity, and to wash the feet of guests was a common piece of hospitality. It is one mark of a deserving widow, that she has "washed the saints' feet." (1 Timothy 5:10.) The real wonder was that such a Master, on such a solemn occasion, should do such a condescending act to such weak disciples. It was not so much the action as the doer of it, that was remarkable. After all there was a touching fitness in our Lord's choice of an instructive action on this solemn occasion. He knew that He was leaving his disciples, like poor feeble travelers, in a weary, wicked world. He would therefore wash their feet before parting, and strengthen and refresh them for their journey. It will be observed that the work was not left, unfinished and half-done. Like a perfect servant, our Lord "wiped" the feet as well as "washed" them. Preface (to volume 3)— The volume now in the reader's hands completes a work which I began sixteen years ago, entitled "Expository Thoughts on the Gospels." By the good hand of God that work is now finished. For this I desire to be deeply thankful. "Better is the end of a thing than the beginning of it." (Ecclesiastes 7:8.) In concluding that portion of the work which is devoted to John's Gospel, I think it right to make a few prefatory remarks about the "Notes." They occupy so large a part of my three volumes on John, that my readers may not unreasonably expect me to give some account of them. Filling up, as they do, at least two-thirds of the work, and necessarily increasing its cost, they require some defense and explanation. Questions such as these will naturally arise in some minds,— "What are these notes? What is their object? What is their doctrinal tone? What helps have been used in preparing them?"— These questions I propose to answer. (1) My object in writing these notes on John's Gospel is soon stated. I have tried to explain, in simple language, everything in the text which needs explanation, and to bring all available light to bear on every verse in the book. In trying to attain this object, I have given not only my own thoughts and opinions, but also the results of a patient study of about seventy Commentators, both ancient and modern, of almost every Church and school in Christendom. I have endeavoured to handle every subject raised by the text, however high and deep, and to meet the requirements of every class of readers, whether educated or uneducated. I have evaded no hard passage, and turned away from no difficulty. I am very sensible that I have often failed to hit the mark, and I have not been ashamed in many places to confess my ignorance. Competent critics will probably detect in the work not a few errors and mistakes. I lay no claim to infallibility. But I can honestly say that I have never handled the Word partially or deceitfully, and have done my best to show "the thing as it is." (Job 26:3.) Some controverted points I have ventured to discuss in annotations of more than ordinary length, and of these a list will be found appended to this concluding volume. On the whole I cannot help hoping, that, in spite of many deficiencies, the notes will be found a help to thoughtful readers of John's Gospel. (2) The doctrinal tone of the notes, I must frankly avow, is thoroughly and unmistakably evangelical. After patiently studying John's Gospel for twelve years, with much thought, much labour, much examination of the writings of others, and, I hope I may add, with some earnest prayers, my theological opinions are what they were when I began to write. In these twelve years I trust I have learned many things: but I can truly say that I have seen no reason to alter my views of doctrine. My conviction is firm and decided, that the theology of that religious school in the Church of England, which, rightly or wrongly, is called Evangelical, is thoroughly Scriptural, and a theology of which no Christian man need be ashamed. I freely confess that, with increasing years and experience, I have learned to think more kindly and charitably than I once did, of theologians who belong to other schools than my own. I am more and more convinced every year I live, that there are many Christians whose hearts are right in the sight of God, while their heads are very wrong. I am more and more convinced, that the differences between schools of religious thought are frequently more nominal than real, more verbal than actual, and that many of them would melt away and disappear, if men would only define the terms and words they use with logical accuracy. But, for all this, I cannot shrink from saying, as in the sight of God, that at present I know no theology which appears to me so thoroughly in accordance with Scripture as Evangelical theology. In the belief of this I have written my notes on John, and in the faith of this I hope to die. With the Bible only in my hands, I find difficulties in the systems of non-Evangelical schools, which to my mind appear insuperable. (3) Concerning the Commentators I have consulted, in preparing my notes on John, I wish to make a few remarks for the benefit of my younger readers, and of those who have not access to large libraries. I see no reason to alter the opinions which I expressed seven years ago, in the Preface to my first volume. After patiently studying Cyril, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Theophylact, for twelve years, it is my deliberate conviction that their Commentaries on the Gospels are often overrated and overpraised, and that those who lead young students of theology to expect to find "all wisdom" in the Fathers, are neither wise nor kind. After an equally patient examination of the modern German Commentators, Tittman, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stier, and Hengstenberg, I am obliged to say that I leave them with a feeling of disappointment. About them also I raise a warning cry for the benefit of young students. I advise them not to expect too much. Writers like Hengstenberg and Stier are well worth reading; but I cannot say that any modern German Commentators seem to me to deserve the extravagant commendation which is often bestowed on them. In fact I have a strong suspicion that many praise German theology without having read it! For throwing light on the meaning of the text of John, and for raising just and beautiful thoughts out of it, my opinion is distinct and decided, that there are no Commentaries equal to those of the Continental divines who lived immediately after the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately they wrote in Latin, which few persons care to read; and their books are, generally, huge, lumbering folios, which few care to handle. Moreover they are sometimes defective in verbal criticism, and were, most of them, more familiar with Latin than Greek. But taking them for all in all, as Expositors and Elucidators of God's Word, in my judgment, there is nothing like them. The man who has carefully read the expositions of Brentius, Bullinger, Gualter, Musculus, and Gerhard, will find that later Commentaries rarely contain any good thoughts which are not to be found in these five writers, and that they say many excellent things which have not occurred to later writers at all. Why these great Expositors are so totally ignored and neglected in the nineteenth century, I do not pretend to explain. Some modern theologians seem not even to be aware that such Commentators as Brentius, Musculus, and Gerhard, ever existed! But the fact is one which reflects little credit on our times. I shall say little or nothing about the works of British Commentators. This is a department of theological literature in which, I must plainly say, I do not think my fellow-countrymen shine. With rare exceptions, they appear to me to fall below the level of their reputation. I shall therefore content myself with naming a few Commentaries, which appear to me more than ordinarily useful and suggestive, and which I have seldom consulted in vain.— Rollock on John is excellent; and it is a great pity that the whole work is not translated, instead of lying buried in Latin.— Hutcheson is always good; but his value is sadly marred by his interminable divisions, uses, applications, and inferences.— Matthew Henry is generally rich in pious thoughts and pleasing illustrations, and sometimes exhibits more learning and acquaintance with books, than he is commonly credited with.— Poole's "Annotations" are sound, clear, and sensible; and, taking him for all in all, I place him at the head of English Commentators on the whole Bible.— Alford and Wordsworth have done good service to the Church by their works on the Greek Testament, and I know none at present that I can sooner recommend to a student of the original. But they both say, occasionally, things with which I cannot agree, and they often seem to me to leave important texts very scantily expounded, or entirely unnoticed. [Footnote: As examples of what I mean, I refer the reader to Wordsworth on John 17:4-20, very scantily expounded, in my judgment; and to Alford on John 10:27-28, not expounded at all!] A fuller and more satisfactory commentary on the Greek Testament appears to me to be still wanted.— Burgon's "Plain Commentary on the Gospels" is an excellent, suggestive, and devout work. But I cannot agree with him, when he touches such subjects as the Church, the Sacraments, and the Ministry.— In fact, the conclusion I arrive at, after a diligent examination of many Commentators, is always one and the same. I trust none of them unreservedly, and I expect nowhere to find perfection. All must be read with caution. They are good helps, but they are not infallible. They are useful assistants, but they are not the pillar of cloud and fire. I advise my younger readers to remember that. Use your own judgment prayerfully and diligently. Use commentaries; but be a slave to none. Call no man master. [Footnote: A full list of Commentators, whom I have consulted, more or less, in preparing my notes on John, will be found in the preface to my first volume. From that list the following authors were omitted,— Hengstenberg on "John," Manton, Newton, Burgess, and Traill, on the "17th chapter of John," and Bishop Andrews' Sermons.] It only remains for me now to express my regret, that the completion of my "Expository Thoughts on the Gospels" has been so long delayed. The delay has arisen from causes entirely beyond my control. The work was first begun in a little quiet parish of three hundred people, and then brought to a standstill by heavy domestic affliction. It has been resumed, and carried on, amidst many interruptions, in an isolated rural parish of 1,300 souls, in which, after coming into residence, I found a parsonage had to be repaired, large schools had to be built, and a huge old dilapidated church had to be restored. In the face of these difficulties and distractions, I can only wonder that I have been enabled to finish my work on John at all. The book is now sent forth, with a deep conviction in the author's mind, that it contains many defects, inaccuracies, and blemishes, but with an earnest desire and prayer that it may help some readers to a better understanding of one of the most interesting portions of Holy Scripture. I never felt more persuaded than I do in the present day of the truth of the old saying, "Ignorance of Scripture is the root of all error." If I can lessen that ignorance a little I shall be very thankful. The concluding paragraph of Dean Alford's "Prolegomena" to his "Commentary on the Book of Revelation," so thoroughly expresses my own feelings, on completing my work on John's Gospel, that I make no excuse for inserting it here, with the omission of a few words:— "I have now only to commend to my gracious God and Father this feeble attempt to explain a most glorious portion of His revealed Scripture. I do it with humble thankfulness, but with a sense of utter weakness before the power of His word, and of inability to sound the depth even of its simplest sentence. May he spare the hand which has been put forward to touch the ark! May He, for Christ's sake, forgive all rashness, all perverseness, all uncharitableness, which may be found in this book! And may He sanctify it to the use of His Church: its truth, if any, for teaching; its manifold defects for warning." J. C. RYLE. Stradbroke Vicarage, Suffolk, February, 1873. The verses we have now read conclude the story of our Lord's washing the feet of His disciples, the night before He was crucified. It is a story full of touching interest, which for some wise reason no Evangelist records except John. The wonderful condescension of Christ, in doing such a menial action, can hardly fail to strike any reader. The mere fact that the Master should wash the feet of the servants might well fill us with surprise. But the circumstances and sayings which arose out of the action are just as interesting as the action itself. Let us see what they were. We should notice, firstly, the hasty ignorance of the Apostle Peter. One moment we find him refusing to allow his Master to do such a servile work as He is about to do:— "Dost Thou wash my feet?" "Thou shalt never wash my feet."— "Another moment we find him rushing with characteristic impetuosity into the other extreme:— "Lord, wash not my feet only, but my hands and my head." But throughout the transaction we find him unable to take in the real meaning of what his eyes behold. He sees, but he does not understand. Let us gather from Peter's conduct that a man may have plenty of faith and love, and yet be sadly destitute of clear knowledge. We must not set down men as graceless and godless because they are dull, and stupid, and blundering in their religion. The heart may often be quite right when the head is quite wrong. We must make allowances for the corruption of the understanding, as well as of the will. We must not be surprised to find that the brains as well as the affections of Adam's children have been hurt by the fall. It is a humbling lesson, and one seldom fully learned except by long experience. But the longer we live the more true shall we find it, that a believer, like Peter, may make many mistakes and lack understanding, and yet, like Peter, have a heart right before God, and get to heaven at last. Even at our best estate we shall find that many of Christ's dealings with us are hard to understand in this life. The "why" and "wherefore" of many a providence will often puzzle and perplex us quite as much as the washing puzzled Peter. The wisdom, and fitness, and necessity of many a thing will often be hidden from our eyes. But at times like these we must remember the Master's words, and fall back upon them:— "What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter." There came days, long after Christ had left the world, when Peter saw the full meaning of all that happened on the memorable night before the crucifixion. Even so there will be a day when every dark page in our life's history will be explained, and when, as we stand with Christ in glory, we shall know all. We should notice, secondly, in this passage, the plain practical lesson which lies upon its surface. That lesson is read out to us by our Lord. He says, "I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." Humility is evidently one part of the lesson. If the only-begotten Son of God, the King of kings, did not think it beneath Him to do the humblest work of a servant, there is nothing which His disciples should think themselves too great or too good to do. No sin is so offensive to God, and so injurious to the soul as pride. No grace is so commended, both by precept and example, as humility. "Be clothed with humility." "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted."— "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself." (1 Peter 5:5; Luke 18:14; Philippians 2:5-8.) Well would it be for the Church if this very simple truth was more remembered, and real humility was not so sadly rare. Perhaps there is no sight so displeasing in God's eyes as a self-conceited, self-satisfied, self-contented, stuck-up professor of religion. Alas, it is a sight only too common! Yet the words which John here records have never been repealed. They will be a swift witness against many at the last day, except they repent. Love is manifestly the other part of the great practical lesson. Our Lord would have us love others so much that we should delight to do anything which can promote their happiness. We ought to rejoice in doing kindnesses, even in little things. We ought to count it a pleasure to lessen sorrow and multiply joy, even when it costs us some self-sacrifice and self-denial. We ought to love every child of Adam so well, that if in the least trifle we can do anything to make him more happy and comfortable, we should be glad to do it. This was the mind of the Master, and this the ruling principle of His conduct upon earth. There are but few who walk in His steps, it may be feared; but these few are men and women after His own heart. The lesson before us may seem a very simple one; but its importance can never be overrated. Humility and love are precisely the graces which the men of the world can understand, if they do not comprehend doctrines. They are graces about which there is no mystery, and they are within reach of all classes. The poorest and most ignorant Christian can every day find occasion for practicing love and humility. Then if we would do good to the world, and make our calling and election sure, let no man forget our Lord's example in this passage. Like Him, let us be humble and loving towards all. We should notice, lastly, in this passage, the deep spiritual lessons which lie beneath its surface. They are three in number, and lie at the very root of religion, though we can only touch them briefly. For one thing, we learn that all need to be washed by Christ. "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in Me." No man or woman can be saved unless his sins are washed away in Christ's precious blood. Nothing else can make us clean or acceptable before God. We must be "washed, sanctified, and justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11.) Christ must wash us, if we are ever to sit down with saints in glory. Then let us take heed that we apply to Him by faith, wash and become clean. They only are washed who believe. For another thing, we learn that even those who are cleansed and forgiven need a daily application to the blood of Christ for daily pardon. We cannot pass through this evil world without defilement. There is not a day in our lives but we fail and come short in many things, and need fresh supplies of mercy. Even "he that is washed needs to wash his feet," and to wash them in the same fountain where he found peace of conscience when he first believed. Then let us daily use that fountain without fear. With the blood of Christ we must begin, and with the blood of Christ we must go on. Finally, we learn that even those who kept company with Christ, and were baptized with water as His disciples, were "not all" washed from their sin. These words are very solemn,— "Ye are clean: but not all." Then let us take heed to ourselves, and beware of false profession. If even Christ's own disciples are not all cleansed and justified, we have reason to be on our guard. Baptism and Churchmanship are no proof that we are right in the sight of God. ================== Notes— v6.—[Then cometh he to Simon Peter.] Whether our Lord began with Simon Peter, is not quite clear from the words before us. The word "then," however, certainly does not mean "then," in the sense of "in order." Chrysostom and Theophylact hold that Jesus washed Judas Iscariot's feet, and then came to Peter. From the subsequent action of dipping and giving a morsel to Judas, it certainly seems probable that he sat very near our Lord. Augustine holds that Jesus began with Peter. Bellarmine eagerly grasps at this, and gives it as one of twenty-eight alleged proofs that Peter always had a primacy among the Apostles! [And Peter saith unto him.] The word "Peter" is not in the Greek text here, but simply "he," or "that man." Our translators seem to have inserted it to make the meaning plain. [Lord, dost thou wash my feet?] The English language here fails to give the full emphasis of the Greek. It would be literally rendered, "Dost Thou, of me, wash the feet?" Such an one as Thou art, wash the feet of such an one as I am! It is like John the Baptist's exclamation when our Lord came to his baptism: ''Comest thou to me?" (Matthew 3:14.) v7.—[Jesus answered and said, etc.] The famous saying of this verse stretches far beyond the literal application of the words. Primarily, of course, it means, "This action of mine has a meaning which in a few minutes I will explain and you will understand, though at present it may seem to you strange and unsuitable."— But in every age true Christians have seen a higher, deeper, broader meaning in the words, and a pious mind cannot doubt that they were intended to bear that meaning. It supplies the key to many things which we cannot understand in the providential government of the world, in the history of the Church, in the events of our own lives. We must make up our minds to see many things happening which we do not know and understand now, and of which we cannot at present see the wisdom. But we must believe that "we shall know hereafter" the full purposes, the why and wherefore and needs-be, of each and all. It is a golden sentence to store up in our memories. God's eternal counsels, the wisdom of the great Head of the Church, must never be forgotten. All is going on well, even when we think all is going on ill. When we cannot see it we must believe. In sickness, sorrow, bereavement, disappointment, we must summon up faith and patience, and hear Christ saying to us, "What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter." Musculus has some happy remarks here on the applicability of this expression to infant baptism, which are most just and true. v8.—[Peter saith...thou...never wash my feet.] Here, again, the English version fails to give the full strength of the Greek words. This sentence would be rendered literally, "Thou shalt never wash my feet for ever," or unto eternity. We may note here, in Peter's language, that there is such a thing as "a voluntary humility," which runs into extremes. Hutcheson remarks, "Men may have much seeming humility in the matters of God, which is yet but preposterous and sinful, and learned from carnal reason." Rollock compares with Peter's conduct here the Romish worship of saints and angels, under the pretense of deep humility and unworthiness to approach God. [Jesus answered...If I wash...not...no part...me.] We need not doubt that this sentence was meant to bear a deep and full meaning, and to reach far beyond the primary application. It would be a very cold and tame exposition to say that our Lord only meant, "Unless thy feet are washed by Me to-night, thou art not one of my disciples."— It means a great deal more. Our Lord seems in effect to say, "Thou wilt not be wise to object to the symbolical action which I am performing. Remember no one can be saved, or have any part in Me and my work of redemption, unless I wash away his sins. Except I wash away thy many sins, even thou, Simon Peter, hast no part in Me. I must wash every saved soul, and every saved soul must be washed. Surely, therefore, it does not become thee to object to my doing an instructive and figurative act to thy feet, when I must needs do a far greater work to thy soul." The sentence is one of wide, deep, and sweeping application. It is true of every Christian of every rank and position. To each one Christ says, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in Me." It is not enough that we are Churchmen, professed communicants, and the like. The great question for every one is this: "Am I washed and justified?" The common assertion that this "washing" here spoken of is baptism, seems to me unwarrantable. Our Lord never baptized any one, so far as we can learn from Scripture. Where is it said that He baptized Peter? Moreover, if baptism were meant, the past tense would have been used: "If I had not washed thee, thou wouldest have no part in Me." The washing here spoken of is something far above baptism. v9.—[Simon Peter saith, etc.] The exclamation of Peter in this verse is highly characteristic of the man. Impulsive, excitable, zealous, ardent, with more love than knowledge, and more feeling than spiritual discernment, he is horrified at the very idea of "having no part in Christ." Anything rather than that! Not seeing clearly the deep meaning of his Master's words, and still sticking to a carnal, literal interpretation of the word "washing," he cries out that his Master may wash him all over, hands and head as well as feet, if an interest in Christ depends on that. Great zeal and love are perfectly consistent with great spiritual ignorance and dullness, and great slowness to comprehend spiritual truth. Rollock remarks that Peter erred as much in one extreme now, as he had erred before in another. Stier remarks that the passionate, strong expression of Peter in this verse, is just the language of a warm-hearted but dull-minded disciple, just beginning to understand, as if light had suddenly flashed on him. v10.—[Jesus saith to him, He that is washed, etc.] This sentence of our Lord's conveys a latent rebuke of Peter's spiritual dullness. It is as though Jesus said, "The washing of head and hands whereof thou speakest is not needed. Even assuming that a literal washing is all I meant in saying, 'If I wash thee not,' it is well known that he who is washed needs only to wash his feet after a journey, and is accounted clean entirely after such a partial washing. But this is far more true of the washing of pardon and justification. He that is pardoned and justified by Me, is entirely washed from all his sins, and only needs the daily forgiveness of the daily defilement he contracts in traveling through a sinful world. Once washed, justified, and accepted by Me, ye are clean before God: although not all of you. There is one painful exception." The great practical truth contained in this sentence ought to be carefully noted and treasured up by all believers. Once joined to Christ and cleansed in His blood, they are completely absolved and free from all spot of guilt, and are counted without blame before God. But for all this they need every day, as they walk through this world, to confess their daily failures, and to sue for daily pardon. They require, in short, a daily washing of their feet, over and above the great washing of justification, which is theirs the moment they first believe. He that neglects this daily washing is a very questionable and doubtful kind of Christian. Luther remarks pithily, "The devil allows no Christian to reach heaven with clean feet all the way." "Every whit," in this verse, means literally "the whole man." The deep mine of meaning which often lies under the surface of our Lord's language is strikingly exemplified in this verse, as well as in John 13:7-8. There is far more in many of His sayings, we may believe, than has ever yet been discovered. It is striking to observe that even of His poor, weak, erring disciples Jesus says, "Ye are clean." Bullinger observes that the words of the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our trespasses," are a daily confession of the very thing here mentioned,—viz., the need of daily washing of our feet.. Casaubon remarks that those who come out of a bath, as a matter of constant experience, only need to wash their feet, which, stepping on the ground as they come out, must needs contract some defilement. In Eastern countries, where bathing was very common, all could see the force of this. Hengstenberg remarks, that "the expression, 'but not all,' was intended to pierce the conscience of Judas, whom the Redeemer did not give up until the last good impulse died within him." The common idea that the "washing" here spoken of refers to baptism, seems to me quite untenable. He that is washed must mean only "washed in a spiritual sense from his sins;" as Psalms 51:2. Hengstenberg's discussion of the point is worth reading. Burgon observes, "The traitor, Judas, though washed by the hands of Christ Himself, was filthy still." v11.—[For he knew...betray him, etc.] Our Lord's perfect foreknowledge of His sufferings and the manner of them, and His thorough discernment of the real characters of all His disciples, are alike shown in this verse. He did not suffer because He did not fore-see it, and was taken by surprise. He walked up to death knowing every step He was about to tread. The sentence is an example of the explanatory glosses which are so characteristic of John's Gospel. The Greek words rendered "who should betray Him," are literally, "the person betraying Him," in the past participle. v12.—[So after...washed...feet.] After the conversation between our Lord and Peter, the washing seems to have gone on without interruption. The disciples were accustomed to see their Master do things they did not understand, and they submitted in silence. [And had taken...garments...set down again.] This refers to His putting on again the long loose outer robe, which was laid aside on performing any action requiring exertion in the East. Then our Lord took His place once more at the table, and commenced a discourse which seems to have ushered in the Lord's Supper. Whether the washing of the feet was meant, among other things, to teach the need of special preparation for that blessed ordinance, is an interesting thought, and worth consideration. It certainly seems our Lord's last action before He gave the bread and wine. [He said...know ye what...done...you.] This question was meant to stir up in the disciples' minds inquiry as to the meaning of what they had just seen. Understanding and intelligent perception of all we do in religion, should be sought after and valued by all true Christians. There is no real religion in blind devotion. "What mean I by this service?" should be the question often impressed on our minds. v13.—[Ye call me Master and Lord.] These words would be more literally rendered, "Ye call Me, or speak of Me, as the Master and the Lord." The expression seems to show that this was the habitual language of the disciples while our Lord was on earth. So Martha says to Mary, "The Master is come." (John 11:28.) [Ye say well; for so I am.] The word "so" is not in the Greek. It is simply "for I am." The expression is a beautiful warrant for applying to Jesus especially the appellation "the Lord." He has Himself endorsed it, by the words, "Ye say well." v14.—[If I then, your Lord, etc.] The argument of this verse is one which our Lord very frequently uses: "If I do a thing, much more ought ye to do it." Literally rendered the meaning is, "If I, the Person whom ye speak of as 'the Lord' and 'the Master,' have washed your feet, and condescended to perform the most menial act of attention to you, ye also ought to feel it a duty to do acts of the same kind for one another,— acts as condescending as washing one another's feet." The words "Your Lord and Master" in the Greek are literally, "The Lord and the Master." "Ye ought" is a very strong expression. It is tantamount to saying, "It is your duty and debt,— ye are under an obligation to do it." Paley on Evidences, p. 2, ch. iv., has a remarkable passage, showing the close affinity between our Lord's conduct here, and His conduct when taking a little child and putting him in the midst of the disciples. In both He taught humility, that rare grace, by action. v15.—[For I have given you an example, etc.] "I have, in my own person, given you a pattern of what your own conduct should be. The duty I want you to learn is of such vast importance that I have not left it to a general precept, but have given you an example of my meaning." Of course the question at once rises,— What did our Lord really mean? Did He mean that we all ought literally to do the very same thing that He did? Or did He only mean that we are to imitate the spirit of His action? The Church of Rome, it is well-known, puts a literal sense on our Lord's language. Once every year, about Easter, the head of the Romish Church publicly washes the feet of certain poor persons got ready for the occasion. The absurdity, to say the least, of this view is evident on a moment's reflection. It seems absurd to take our Lord's words literally, and to suppose that the Pope's literal washing of a few feet at Easter can supersede the duty of all Christians to do the same. Yet it is only fair to remember that the Moravians to this day take a literal view of those words, and have a custom called "pedilavium." It is in any case absurd to suppose that our Lord would require His disciples to perform a duty which the young and the feeble would be physically unable to do. It is inconsistent with the general tenor of our Lord's teaching to suppose that He would ever attach so much importance to a mere bodily action. "Bodily exercise profiteth little." (1 Timothy 4:8.) A formal performance of bodily acts of religion is just the easiest thing that can be imposed on people. The thing that is really hard, and yet always required, is the service of the heart. The true interpretation of the two verses is that which places a spiritual sense on our Lord's words. It is a practical illustration of Mat 20:26-28. He wished to teach His disciples that they ought to be willing to wait on one another, serve one another, minister to one another, even in the least and lowest things. They should think nothing too low, or humble, or menial to undertake, if they can show love, kindness, and condescension to another. If He, the King of kings, condescended to leave heaven to save souls, and dwell thirty-three years in this sin-defiled world, there is nothing that we should think too lowly to undertake. Pride, because we possess wealth, rank, position, place, education, or high-breeding, is condemned heavily in this passage. He who would shrink from doing the least kindness to the poorest Christian, has read these verses to little purpose, and does not copy his Master's example. One caution only we must remember. Let us not suppose that an ostentatious attention to the poor constitutes the whole of obedience to the law of this passage. It is easy work comparatively to care for the poor. We are to be ready to do the least acts of kindness to our equals quite as much as to the poor. There is nothing about temporal poverty in the passage. The disciples were told their duty to "one another." This is a very important point. It is much easier and more self-satisfying to play the part and do the work of a Christian to the poor than to our equals. How entirely the passage overthrows the claim of mere talking, head-learned professors of sound doctrine, to be accounted true Christians, it is needless to show. Doctrinal orthodoxy, without practical love and humility, is utterly worthless before God. Bullinger remarks, how singularly full of Christian truth the passage is which ends at this verse. That we are washed clean from all sins, by Christ our Saviour,— that although washed, the remainder of infirmity sticks to us, and obliges us to wash our feet daily,— that the duty of a disciple is to make Christ his example in all things,— these three great lessons stand forth most prominently. Gurnall observes, "The master here doth not only rule the scholar's book for him; but writes him a copy with his own hand." If we would understand the full meaning of these verses, we must mark carefully where they stand in the chapter. They follow hard after the remarkable passage in which we read of Christ washing His disciples' feet. They stand in close connection with His solemn command, that the disciples should do as they had seen Him do. Then come the five verses which we have now to consider. We are taught, for one thing, in these verses, that Christians must never be ashamed of doing anything that Christ has done. We read, "Verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his Lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." There seems little doubt that our Lord's all-seeing eye saw a rising unwillingness in the minds of the Apostles to do such menial things as they had just seen Him do. Puffed up with their old Jewish expectation of thrones and kingdoms in this world, secretly self-satisfied with their own position as our Lord's friends, these poor Galileans were startled at the idea of washing people's feet! They could not bring themselves to believe that Messiah's service entailed work like this. They could not yet take in the grand truth, that true Christian greatness consisted in doing good to others. And hence they needed our Lord's word of warning. If He had humbled Himself to do humbling work, His disciples must not hesitate to do the same. The lesson is one of which we all need to be reminded. We are all too apt to dislike any work which seems to entail trouble, self-denial, and going down to our inferiors. We are only too ready to depute such work to others, and to excuse ourselves by saying, "It is not in our way." When feelings of this kind arise within us we shall find it good to remember our Lord's words in this passage, no less than our Lord's example. We ought never to think it beneath us to show kindness to the lowest of men. We ought never to hold our hand because the objects of our kindness are ungrateful or unworthy. Such was not the mind of Him who washed the feet of Judas Iscariot as well as Peter. He who in these matters cannot stoop to follow Christ's example, gives little evidence of possessing true love or true humility. We are taught, for another thing, in these verses, the uselessness of religious knowledge if not accompanied by practice. We read, "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them." It sounds as if our Lord would warn His disciples that they would never be really happy in His service if they were content with a barren head-knowledge of duty, and did not live according to their knowledge. The lesson is one which deserves the continual remembrance of all professing Christians. Nothing is more common than to hear people saying of doctrine or duty,— "We know it, we know it;" while they sit still in unbelief or disobedience. They actually seem to flatter themselves that there is something creditable and redeeming in knowledge, even when it bears no fruit in heart, character, or life. Yet the truth is precisely the other way. To know what we ought to be, believe, and do, and yet to be unaffected by our knowledge, only adds to our guilt in the sight of God. To know that Christians should be humble and loving, while we continue proud and selfish, will only sink us deeper in the pit, unless we awake and repent. Practice, in short, is the very life of religion. "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James 4:17.) Of course we must never despise knowledge. It is in one sense the beginning of Christianity in the soul. So long as we know nothing of sin, or God, or Christ, or grace, or repentance, or faith, or conscience, we are of course nothing better than heathens. But we must not overrate knowledge. It is perfectly valueless unless it produces results in our conduct, and influences our lives, and moves our wills. In fact knowledge without practice does not raise us above the level of the devil. He could say to Jesus, "I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God." The devils, says James, "believe and tremble." (James 2:19.) Satan knows truth, but has no will to obey it, and is miserable. He that would be happy in Christ's service must not only know, but do. We are taught, for another thing, in these verses, the perfect knowledge which Christ has of all His people. He can distinguish between false profession and true grace. The Church may be deceived, and rank men as Apostles, who are nothing better than brethren of Judas Iscariot. But Jesus is never deceived, for He can read hearts. And here He declares with peculiar emphasis, "I know whom I have chosen." This perfect knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ is a very solemn thought, and one which cuts two ways. It ought to fill the hypocrite with alarm, and drive him to repentance. Let him remember that the eyes of the all-seeing Judge already see him through and through, and detect the want of a wedding garment. If he would not be put to shame before assembled worlds, let him cast aside his false profession, and confess his sin before it is too late. Believers, on the other hand, may think of an all-knowing Savior with comfort. They may remember, when misunderstood and slandered by an evil world, that their Master knows all. He knows that they are true and sincere, however weak and failing. A time is coming when He will confess them before His Father, and bring forth their characters clear and bright as the summer sun at noon-day. We are taught, finally, in these verses, the true dignity of Christ's disciples. The world may despise and ridicule the Apostles because they care more for works of love and humility than the pursuits of the world. But the Master bids them remember their commission, and not be ashamed. They are God's ambassadors, and have no cause to be cast down. "Verily, verily," He declares, "He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth Me; and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me." The doctrine here laid down is full of encouragement. It ought to cheer and hearten all who lay themselves out to do good, and specially to do good to the fallen and the poor. Work of this kind gets little praise from men, and they who give themselves up to it are often regarded as miserable enthusiasts, and meet with much opposition. Let them however work on, and take comfort in the words of Christ which we are now considering. To spend and be spent in trying to do good, makes a man far more honorable in the eyes of Jesus than to command armies or amass a fortune. The few who work for God in Christ's way have no cause to be ashamed. Let them not be cast down if the children of the world laugh and sneer and despise them. A day comes when they will hear the words, "Come ye blessed children of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you." (Matthew 25:34.) ================== Notes— v16.—[Verily, verily, I say unto you, etc.] This well-known mode of expression is doubtless used here to show the great importance of the lessons which our Lord is imposing on the disciples at this point. It is as though He said, "Do not think lightly of what I am teaching you now. It is no trifling matter. Love and humility are weighty things in my service. I solemnly charge you to remember that, as I have often told you, the servant is not greater than his master, but must strictly follow his example. The messenger sent on an errand is not greater than him that sends him, and must carefully do as he is bid. If I, your Master and Head, have done these actions of love and humility, never be ashamed of doing the same, or similar ones. If you are really my disciples and messengers, you must prove it by shrinking from nothing which you have seen Me do." The Greek word which we render here, "He that is sent," is the same that is elsewhere rendered, "the Apostle." Our translators seem to have translated the word as they have to show more forcibly the connection between "the sender" and "the sent," which, to a reader ignorant of Greek, would not have appeared if the word "apostle" had been used. v17.—[If ye know...happy...do them.] The object of this verse seems to be the confirmation of the preceding one. "Be not content with knowing these things with your heads. See that you actually practice them. If you really know and understand my meaning, you will find it your happiness to put it in practice." The latent idea seems to be, "Wretched and miserable Christians are ye, if you know these things, and then stop short, and do not practice them." Let us note the solemn principle which lies beneath the verse. Knowledge without practice is the character of the devil. None knows more truth, and none does more evil than he. Let us not forget that! v18.—[I speak not of you all.] It is not quite clear what our Lord meant by these words. Some think, as Bishop Hall, that the connection is with the verse before, and that our Lord meant, "When I speak of happiness, knowledge, and practice, I do not speak as if there was no false Apostle among you." Others think that the sense should be carried forward. "I am not speaking as if you were all equally faithful, and equally sent by Me." [I know whom I have chosen.] This sentence again admits of being taken in two senses. Some think, as Calvin, Poole, Rollock, and Hutcheson, that it refers to the eternal election and choice of those disciples who were true believers. "I know whom I have really called and chosen to be mine by my Spirit." Others think, as Zwingle, Musculus, Hall, Whitby, Hengstenberg, and Burgon, that it only refers to the official choice and calling of the twelve when our Lord selected them to be His disciples, and has no reference to the inward call of grace. It would then mean, "I know the real inward character of all those whom I have called to be my professing disciples." It certainly favours this view, that our Lord uses precisely the same expression in John 6:70 : "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" Any one who cares to see the question well discussed, will find it ably examined by Gomarus. [But that the Scripture...fulfilled.] Our Lord's meaning seems to be filled up in the following way: "I speak not of you all, as if I thought you all faithful. I know that ye are not all clean and trustworthy, and I know that in this way you will see the words of Scripture fulfilled." Here, as in many places where the expression occurs, "This was done that the Scripture might be fulfilled," we must not for a moment suppose that "things were done in order that Scripture might be fulfilled," but that "when things were done the Scripture was fulfilled." "I know the characters of all my disciples," our Lord seems to say, "and I know that very soon something will happen by which the Scripture will be fulfilled." [He that eateth bread, etc.] The forty-first Psalm is here shown to apply to one greater than David, and one worse than Ahitophel. The ninth verse here quoted says, "Mine own familiar friend, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." The expression implies the act of one who like a stubborn and vicious horse, suddenly turns round against his master and kicks at him. "This," our Lord says, "is about to be fulfilled in the conduct of Judas Iscariot to Me." It cannot of course be said that this quotation is positive proof that Judas ate the Lord's Supper. But it certainly rather increases the probability of it. The words, "eateth bread with Me," used in such close juxtaposition to the institution of the Lord's Supper, are very remarkable. The grand lesson, that we must be prepared for much disappointment in friends and companions in this life, is very plain in this passage. The less we expect from man the better. v19.—[Now I tell you before, &c.] There can be little doubt that this verse applies to the warning of Judas' approaching apostasy which our Lord had just given. "I tell you of the coming fall of one of your number before it takes place, in order that when it takes place you may not be confounded, but may see fresh reason for believing that I am the promised Messiah." The expression, "I am He," in the Greek is literally, "I am." Is there any reference to the famous "I AM" hath sent me in Exodus? It comes in close connection with "sending" in the next verse. v20.—[Verily, verily I say, etc.] Our Lord's purpose in this verse seems to be to encourage and cheer His faithful disciples. "Be not dismayed" he seems to say, "though one of your number is unfaithful and falls away. Persevere and fear not. Remember the high dignity of your office. I solemnly declare to you that he who receives you or any one else whom I send forth to preach the Gospel, receives Me, because ye are my representatives. Nor is this all. He that receives Me, receives not Me only, but God the Father who sent Me. Ye have no cause therefore to be ashamed of your calling however unworthily some may behave." Let us note that it is no light matter to reject and despise a faithful minister of Christ. A weak and ignorant servant may carry a message for a royal master, and for his master's sake, ought not to be lightly esteemed. Contempt for Christ's ministers, when they are really faithful, is a bad symptom in a church or a nation. The connection of this verse with the preceding passage is certainly not easy to see, and has puzzled all commentators. Some, as Alford, have thought that our Lord intended to show the wickedness of Judas in giving up such an honourable office as that of the Apostleship. This seems far-fetched.— Some refer it back to the command to imitate our Lord's humility by washing one another's feet, and think it is meant to remind them that even they are Christ's ambassadors. I prefer the view already given, that the words are meant to cheer and comfort the disciples. Though not all were faithful, the true-hearted ones were Christ's commissioned ambassadors. Stier says, "The whole circle of the Apostles seemed to be disgraced and broken up by the treachery of Judas, and therefore our Lord confirms the faithful in their election, and that very fitly by repeating an earlier promise." The subject of the verses before us is a very painful one. They describe the last scene between our Lord Jesus Christ and the false Apostle Judas Iscariot. They contain the last words which passed between them before they parted forever in this world. They never seem to have met again on earth, excepting in the garden when our Lord was taken prisoner. Within a short time both the holy Master and the treacherous servant were dead. They will never meet again in the body till the trumpet sounds, and the dead are raised, and the judgment is set, and the books are opened. What an awful meeting will that be! Let us mark, firstly, in this passage, what trouble our Lord Jesus went through for the sake of our souls. We are told that shortly after washing the disciples' feet, He "was troubled in spirit, and said, One of you shall betray Me." The whole length and breadth and depth of our Master's troubles during His earthly ministry are far beyond the conception of most people. His death and suffering on the cross were only the heading up and completion of His sorrows. But all throughout His life,— partly from the general unbelief of the Jews,— partly from the special hatred of the Pharisees and Sadducees,— partly from the weakness and infirmity of His few followers,— He must have been in a peculiar degree "a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." (Isaiah 53:3.) But the trouble before us was a singular and exceptional one. It was the bitter sorrow of seeing a chosen Apostle deliberately becoming an apostate, a backslider, and an ungrateful traitor. That it was a foreseen sorrow from the beginning we need not doubt; but sorrow is not less acute because long foreseen. That it was a peculiarly cutting sorrow is very evident. Nothing is found so hard for flesh and blood to bear as ingratitude. Even a poet of our own has said that it is "sharper than a serpent's tooth to have a thankless child." Absalom's rebellion seems to have been David's heaviest trouble, and Judas Iscariot's treachery seems to have been one of the heaviest trials of the Son of David. When He saw it drawing near He was "troubled in spirit." Passages like these should make us see the amazing love of Christ to sinners. How many cups of sorrow He drained to the dregs in working out our salvation, beside the mighty cup of bearing our sins. They show us how little reason we have for complaining when friends fail us, and men disappoint us. If we share our Master's lot we have no cause to be surprised. Above all, they show us the perfect suitableness of Christ to be our Savior. He can sympathize with us. He has suffered Himself, and can feel for those who are ill-used and forsaken. Let us mark, secondly, in these verses, the power and malignity of our great enemy the devil. We are told in the beginning of the chapter that he "put it into the heart" of Judas to betray our Lord. We are told here that he "entered into" him. First he suggests: then he commands. First he knocks at the door and asks permission to come in: then, once admitted, he takes complete possession, and rules the whole inward man like a tyrant. Let us take heed that we are not "ignorant of Satan's devices." He is still going to and fro in the earth, seeking whom he may devour. He is about our path, and about our bed, and spies out all our ways. Our only safety lies in resisting him at the first, and not listening to his first advances. For this we are all responsible. Strong as he is, he has no power to do us harm, if we cry to the stronger One in heaven, and use the means which He has appointed. It is a standing principle of Christianity, and will ever be found true. "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." (James 4:7.) Once let a man begin tampering with the devil, and he never knows how far he may fall. Trifling with the first thoughts of sin,— making light of evil ideas when first offered to our hearts,— allowing Satan to talk to us, and flatter us, and put bad notions into our hearts,— all this may seem a small matter to many. It is precisely at this point that the road to ruin often begins. He that allows Satan to sow wicked thoughts will soon find within his heart a crop of wicked habits. Happy is he who really believes that there is a devil, and believing, watches and prays daily that he may be kept from his temptations. Let us mark, lastly, in these verses, the extreme hardness which comes over the heart of a backsliding professor of religion. This is a thing which is most painfully brought out in the case of Judas Iscariot. One might have thought that the sight of our Lord's trouble, and the solemn warning, "One of you shall betray Me," would have stirred the conscience of this unhappy man. But it did not do so. One might have thought that the solemn words, "that thou doest, do quickly," would have arrested him, and made him ashamed of his intended sin. But nothing seems to have moved him. Like one whose conscience was dead, buried, and gone, he rises and goes out to do his wicked work, and parts with his Lord forever. The extent to which we may harden ourselves by resisting light and knowledge is one of the most fearful facts in our nature. We may become past feeling, like those whose limbs are mortified before they die. We may lose entirely all sense of fear, or shame, or remorse, and have a heart as hard as the nether millstone, blind to every warning, and deaf to every appeal. It is a sore disease, but one which unhappily is not uncommon among professing Christians. None seem so liable to it as those who, having great light and privilege, deliberately turn their backs on Christ, and return to the world. Nothing seems likely to touch such people, but the voice of the archangel and the trump of God. Let us watch jealously over our hearts, and beware of giving way to the beginnings of sin. Happy is he who feareth always, and walks humbly with his God. The strongest Christian is the one who feels his weakness most, and cries most frequently, "Hold Thou me up, and I shall be safe." (Psalms 119:117; Proverbs 28:14.) ================== Notes— v21.—[When Jesus had thus said.] This would be more literally rendered, "had said these things," referring to all He had just been saying. There seems to be a kind of break or pause in the narrative here. This is the point in John's narrative where the institution of the Lord's Supper seems to come in. At any rate there seems no point, comparing his account of this evening with that of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, where it can be so well fitted in. This is the view of Jansenius, Lampe, and Burgon. [He was troubled in spirit.] This expression applied to our Lord is peculiar to John. We find it only in his Gospel, here and at John 11:33 and John 12:27. Here it seems to mean principally the pain and sorrow which our Lord experienced, on seeing one of his own chosen Apostles about to betray him. In addition to this, it probably includes that peculiar agony and distress of soul which our Lord was subject to under the presence of a world's sin laid upon Him, and which we see intensified in the garden of Gethsemane. Let it be noted, that of all the Gospel writers John is the one who dwells most fully on the Divine nature of our Lord, and also is the one who describes most fully the reality of His human affections. Observe that to be troubled and disturbed in mind is not in itself sinful. Brentius remarks, after Augustine, how foolish were the Stoic philosophers, who taught that a wise man is never disturbed in mind. Musculus thinks that our Lord's distress and sorrow at the sight of the wickedness of Judas had much to do with this "trouble of spirit." Nothing so sad as the sight of a hardened, incorrigible backslider. [And testified, and said.] The frequency with which John used the word "testified" is very remarkable. It occurs thirty-three times in his Gospel, and only three times in all the other three Gospels. Why our Lord is said to "testify" in this place is hard to see. We must suppose that it means He made an open, solemn declaration in a very impressive manner, like a witness bearing testimony to some great and unexpected fact. [Verily...I say...one of you...betray me.] The solemn "Amen, amen," here, as elsewhere, was calculated to arrest the attention of the disciples to the declaration our Lord was going to make. "One out of you (i.e., out of your number) shall betray Me. My last and crowning trial draws near. I am about to bear a world's sins, in my own body on the tree; and painful as it is to say, the first step in the history of my passion shall be my betrayal by one of yourselves." Let us note our Lord's thorough foreknowledge of all the details of His sufferings, as well as of the great fact that He was about to be killed. v22.—[Then the disciples looked...another.] The first effect of our Lord's declaration seems to have been silence. Like men stunned and amazed, the disciples looked at one another in astonishment. The thing announced was the last thing they expected to hear. [Doubting of whom he spake.] The word "doubting" hardly conveys the full force of the Greek here. It is rather, as 2 Corinthians 4:8, "perplexed," "puzzled." Let us note that neither here nor afterwards does any suspicion appear to have fallen on Judas. For anything we can see he looked as good as Peter, James, and John, and as unlikely to betray his Master. The length to which hypocrisy can go is very awful. v23.—[Now...leaning...Jesus' bosom.] To understand this we must remember the customs of the East, in the time of our Lord, about the position and attitude of the guests at a meal. They did not sit, but reclined. The famous picture of the Last Supper, by Leonardo Da Vinci, gives a totally inaccurate idea of the scene. [One...disciples...Jesus loved.] There can be no doubt this was John, the writer of this Gospel. It is the first time he speaks of himself in this way, and the expression occurs afterwards four times, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:7, John 21:20. The Greek word rendered "loved" deserves notice. It signifies the higher, nobler, and more refined kind of love. There are two words in the Greek language translated "love" in the New Testament. Let it be noted that the general special love with which our Lord loved all His disciples did not prevent His having a particular love for one individual. Why he specially loved John we are not told. Gifts certainly do not appear so much in John as grace. But it is worth noticing that love seems more the characteristic of John than of any disciple, and that in this he showed more of the mind of Christ. It is quite clear that special friendship for one individual is quite consistent with love for all. It is noteworthy that of all the writers of the New Testament, none goes so deep and reveals so much of the hidden things of God as he who lay in the bosom of Christ. v24.—[Simon Peter therefore beckoned, etc.] The characteristic forwardness and zeal of Peter come out strikingly in this verse. None seem so excited by our Lord's announcement as he is. None is so anxious to know of whom our Lord can be speaking. He cannot wait silently like the others. He makes a sign to John to ask privately who it can be. A fisherman by early training, like John, he was probably intimate with him, and could make himself understood by signs. Let us note that the whole transaction seems to show that Peter did not sit next [to] our Lord in the post of honour and favour. That place was given to John. Rollock here observes, that so far from Peter having any primacy among the Apostles, he here uses the intercession of John! v25.—[He then lying on Jesus' breast, etc.] The Greek words here would be more literally rendered, "He having fallen upon." It is so translated in eleven out of twelve other places where it occurs in the New Testament. The idea is evidently of one moving and leaning towards another, so as to get closer to him and whisper a question, so as not to be heard or observed. That this is what John did is evident. It is plain that he did not say out aloud, "Lord, who is it?" v26.—[Jesus answered...He...sop...dipped it.] The action by which our Lord told John He would indicate the traitor to him, was probably so common at an Eastern banquet, that no one at the table would remark anything about it. That it was a common way of eating is shown by Rth 2:14, "Dip thy morsel in the vinegar." The word "sop," the marginal reading tells us, might be translated "morsel." To give a morsel, as our Lord did, was probably a mark of favour or compliment. That our Lord's answer was whispered, is evident. No one seems to have noticed it, except John. Hengstenberg observes, that by this act of kindness and attention Jesus "would touch the heart of Judas once more, if haply he might be susceptible of better emotions." [And when...dipped...gave...Judas...Simon.] The word "gave" is literally "gives," in the present tense, showing the immediate action which followed our Lord's reply to John's question. Here, as elsewhere, it is noteworthy that John specially calls Judas "the son of Simon," in order to make it quite clear what Judas it was who did this foul deed. Bengel remarks, "How very near to Jesus was Judas on this occasion! But in a short time after, by what a wide gulf did glory separate Jesus from Judas, and destruction separate Judas from Jesus." v27.—[And after the sop...Satan entered...him.] Of course this does not mean that now for the first time Satan entered, but that from this moment Satan got full and entire possession of the heart of Judas. Up to this time he was in it, but now he possessed it. The word "then" is emphatically given in the Greek, but omitted by our translators. It should be, "After the supper, then Satan entered into him." Let us note the reality, personality, and awful power of our great spiritual enemy the devil. There are degrees in his power and dominion over us. If his first temptations are not resisted, he may in the end gain full and entire possession of every part of our soul, and lead us captive to be his slaves. This seems the history of Judas. Musculus observes that even at the first communion Satan was present, and busy in a heart. [Then said Jesus...that...doest...do quickly.] The full meaning and purport of this solemn saying it is not easy to define positively. It is evidently a very elliptical saying, and we can only conjecture about it. Of course we cannot suppose that our Lord desired to hasten on an act of wickedness, nor yet can we suppose for a moment that there was any impatience in our Lord, or unwillingness to await the hour of His sufferings.— But we must remember that our Lord foreknew perfectly all that was before Him in the next twenty-four hours. Does He not then speak to Judas as to one of the instruments in the great work which was about to be accomplished? Does He not seem to say, "If thou must indeed do this wicked act— and I know now that the prince of this world has got full possession of thy heart,— go on and do it. There need be no delay. I am ready to suffer and to die. Do thy part, and I will do mine. The Sacrifice is ready to be slain. Do thy part in the transaction, and let there be no unnecessary waste of time"? Chrysostom says, ''This is not the expression of one commanding, nor advising, but of one reproaching, and showing him that He desired to correct him; but that since he was incorrigible, He let him go." Augustine says, "This was a word rather of glad readiness than of anger." Calvin says, ''Hitherto Jesus tried by various methods to bring Judas back, but to no purpose. Now He addresses him as a desperate man: 'Go to destruction, since you have resolved to go to destruction.' In doing so He performs the office of a Judge who condemns to death not those whom He drives of His own accord to ruin, but those who have already ruined themselves by their own fault." Cyril starts the odd idea that our Lord addresses these words to Satan rather than Judas, and as it were challenges him to do his worst! Gerhard sees a likeness in the expression, to God's words to Balaam, when He says, "Rise up and go." (Numbers 22:20.) They did not signify approbation, but only a permission. Yet God's anger was kindled when Balaam went with Balak's ambassadors. Musculus observes the use of the present tense here. It is not "What thou art going to do," but "What thou art doing now." Even at the Lord's table wickedness was going on in Judas' heart. Lightfoot says, "I take this expression for a tacit, severe threat, pronounced not without scorn and indignation: 'I know well what thou art contriving against Me. What thou doest, do quickly, else thy own death may prevent thee; for thou hast but a very short time to live. Thy own end draws on apace.'" Whitby compares it to Ezekiel 20:39; "Go ye, serve every one his idols." Some, as Hengstenberg, would render the Greek word for quickly "more quickly," as if our Lord wished him to hasten his work. But there seems no necessity for this. After all it is noteworthy that the disciples did not know what the saying meant; and even John, though writing forty or fifty years afterwards, by inspiration of God, was not directed to explain it, though he does explain our Lord's sayings in other places. We may therefore safely leave the meaning somewhat uncertain. That our Lord spoke these mysterious words aloud and openly, so that all the company heard, is quite evident from the context. John's question was a whisper; His reply was another whisper, and neither was remarked or heard by others. But the address to Judas was heard by all. v28.—[Now no man at the table, etc.] This verse would be more literally rendered, "Now this thing no one knew, of them that were sitting at table, for what purpose He said it to him." The sentence confirms the statement above made, that both John's question and our Lord's answer were spoken in a whisper or undertone, and not noticed by any one. This sudden address of our Lord to Judas would therefore take the disciples by surprise. v29.—[For some of them thought, etc.] This whole verse is interesting, and throws light on some curious points. The statement that "Judas had the bag," shows the position he occupied among the Apostles. He was so far from being suspected, that he had the charge of the common store of money. Bullinger even thinks that he must have been a man remarkable for wisdom, prudence, economy, and faithfulness. The supposition of some, that Jesus told Judas to "buy the things needed against the feast," shows clearly that our Lord did not work miracles in order to procure the necessaries required by Himself and His disciples. Christians must buy and sell like other people, and must manage their money affairs with prudence and economy. It also shows how little the disciples realized that their Master's death was close at hand. The supposition of others, that Jesus told Judas to "give something to the poor," shows plainly what was our Lord's custom in the matter of almsgiving. He sanctified and adorned the practice of caring for the poor by His own example. This passage, and Galatians 2:10, deserve careful consideration. It may be doubted whether the English Poor Law has not tended to shut up English almsgiving far more than is right before God. Let us mark the snares which attend the possession, fingering, and handling of money. The man who has care of the money in our Lord's little company of followers, is the very man who makes shipwreck of his soul for ever, through the love of money. "Give me neither poverty nor riches," should be a Christian's frequent prayer. (Proverbs 30:8.) Bullinger points out that the possession of money is evidently not in itself sinful and wicked, and argues from the verse that the Romish mendieant friars, and others who made a merit of self-imposed poverty, are under a complete delusion. It is not the having, but the misusing money which is sinful. v30.—[He then...received....sop...immediately out.] The hasty departure of Judas as soon as our Lord had given him the morsel, and spoken the remarkable words already commented on, may easily be explained. He saw at once that our Lord knew all his plot, and dreaded exposure. His conscience condemned him, and he dared no longer sit in our Lord's company. He at any rate understood what our Lord meant, if nobody else did. He felt himself detected and discovered, and for very shame got up and went away. It is curious and noteworthy that John, at all events, must have known Judas to be the traitor, and yet he seems to have said nothing. It seems very difficult to me to explain this part of the history of this memorable evening, unless we admit that Judas Iscariot received the Lord's Supper with the other Apostles.— From this point to the seizure of our Lord in the garden, the narrative flows on without break or interruption, and I cannot see any place at which the Lord's Supper can come in. I therefore hold strongly that Judas was actually a communicant.— The subject is very fully discussed by Gerhard, who takes this view, and confirms it by quotations from Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret, Euthymius, Lombardus, Aquinas, Ferus, Toletus, Bellarmine, Jansenius, Baronius, Maldonatus, Calvin, Beza, Martyr, Bucer, and Whittaker. After all the expression of Luk 22:21 appears to me unanswerable. [And it was night.] This emphatic little sentence of course is not inserted without a meaning; but why, we are left to conjecture. Perhaps it was meant to show us that Judas purposely waited till darkness, to accomplish his deed of darkness. "This is your hour, and the power of darkness." (Luke 22:53.) Perhaps it was meant to show that Judas slunk off at a time when nobody could see where he went, follow him, or observe his movements. Perhaps it was meant to show that the time was hastening on, and that our Lord had reason to say, "That thou doest, do quickly." Perhaps it was only meant to mark the precise time when our Lord delivered the exquisite address of the next three chapters. John loves to mark time and places in his narrative. One thing, at any rate, is very clear. The expression shows that the first Lord's Supper was not celebrated by day, but by night. The objections to an evening sacrament commonly made by certain persons, are really so untenable in the face of this passage, that one marvels how men of common sense can make them. In this passage we find the Lord Jesus at last alone with His eleven faithful disciples. The traitor, Judas Iscariot, had left the room, and gone out to do his wicked deed of darkness. Freed from his painful company, our Lord opens His heart to His little flock more fully than He had ever done before. Speaking to them for the last time before His passion, He begins a discourse which for touching interest surpasses any portion of Scripture. These verses show us what glory the crucifixion brought both to God the Father and to God the Son. It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that this was what our Lord had in His mind when He said, "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him."— It is as though He said, "The time of my crucifixion is at hand. My work on earth is finished. An event is about to take place tomorrow, which, however painful to you who love Me, is in reality most glorifying both to Me and My Father." This was a dark and mysterious saying, and we may well believe that the eleven did not understand it. And no wonder! In all the agony of the death on the cross, in all the ignominy and humiliation which they saw afar off, or heard of next day, in hanging naked for six hours between two thieves,— in all this there was no appearance of glory! On the contrary, it was an event calculated to fill the minds of the Apostles with shame, disappointment, and dismay. And yet our Lord's saying was true. The crucifixion brought glory to the Father. It glorified His wisdom, faithfulness, holiness, and love. It showed Him wise, in providing a plan whereby He could be just, and yet the Justifier of the ungodly.— It showed Him faithful, in keeping His promise, that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head.— It showed Him holy, in requiring His law's demands to be satisfied by our great Substitute.— It showed Him loving, in providing such a Mediator, such a Redeemer, and such a Friend for sinful man as His co-eternal Son. The crucifixion brought glory to the Son. It glorified His compassion, His patience, and His power. It showed Him most compassionate, in dying for us, suffering in our stead, allowing Himself to be counted sin and a curse for us, and buying our redemption with the price of His own blood.— It showed Him most patient, in not dying the common death of most men, but in willingly submitting to such horrors and unknown agonies as no mind can conceive, when with a word he could have summoned His Father's angels, and been set free.— It showed Him most powerful, in bearing the weight of all a world's transgressions, and vanquishing Satan and despoiling him of his prey. Forever let us cling to these thoughts about the crucifixion. Let us remember that painting and sculpture can never tell a tenth part of what took place on the cross. Crucifixes and pictures at best can only show us a human being agonizing in a painful death. But of the length and breadth and depth and height of the work transacted on the cross,— of God's law honored, man's sins borne, sin punished in a Substitute, free salvation bought for man,— of all this they can tell nothing. Yet all this lies hid under the crucifixion. No wonder Paul cries, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Galatians 6:14.) These verses show us, secondly, what great importance our Lord Jesus attaches to the grace of brotherly love. Almost as soon as the false Apostle had left the faithful eleven, comes the injunction, "Love one another." Immediately after the sad announcement that He would leave them soon, the commandment is given, "Love one another." It is called a "new" commandment, not because it had never been given before, but because it was to be more honored, to occupy a higher position, to be backed by a higher example than it ever had been before. Above all, it was to be the test of Christianity before the world. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." Let us take heed that this well-known Christian grace is not merely a notion in our heads, but a practice in our lives. Of all the commands of our Master there is none which is so much talked about and so little obeyed as this. Yet, if we mean anything when we profess to have charity and love toward all men, it ought to be seen in our tempers and our words, our bearing and our doing, our behavior at home and abroad, our conduct in every relation of life. Specially it ought to show itself forth in all our dealing with other Christians. We should regard them as brethren and sisters, and delight to do anything to promote their happiness. We should abhor the idea of envy, malice, and jealousy towards a member of Christ, and regard it as a downright sin. This is what our Lord meant when He told us to love one another. Christ's cause in the earth would prosper far more than it does if this simple law was more honored. There is nothing that the world understands and values more than true charity. The very men who cannot comprehend doctrine, and know nothing of theology, can appreciate charity. It arrests their attention, and makes them think. For the world's sake, if for no other cause, let us follow after charity more and more. These verses show us, lastly, how much self-ignorance there may be in the heart of a true believer. We see Simon Peter declaring that he was ready to lay down his life for his Master. We see his Master telling him that in that very night he would "deny Him thrice." And we all know how the matter ended. The Master was right, and Peter was wrong. Let it be a settled principle in our religion, that there is an amount of weakness in all our hearts, of which we have no adequate conception, and that we never know how far we might fall if we were tempted. We fancy sometimes, like Peter, that there are some things we could not possibly do. We look pitifully upon others who fall, and please ourselves in the thought that at any rate we should not have done so. We know nothing at all. The seeds of every sin are latent in our hearts, even when renewed, and they only need occasion, or carelessness and the withdrawal of God's grace for a season, to put forth an abundant crop. Like Peter, we may think we can do wonders for Christ, and like Peter, we may learn by bitter experience that we have no power and might at all. The servant of Christ will do wisely to remember these things. "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall." (1 Corinthians 10:12.) A humble sense of our own innate weakness, a constant dependence on the Strong for strength, a daily prayer to be held up, because we cannot hold up ourselves,— these are the true secrets of safety. The great Apostle of the Gentiles said, "When I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Corinthians 12:10.) ================== Notes— v31.—[Therefore, when...gone out, Jesus said.] The withdrawal of Judas from the company of the disciples, at this point, forms a distinct break in the narrative. At once, from this time, our Lord seems to speak as one relieved by the absence of an uncongenial mind. There is a manifest alteration in the tone of all He says. It seems pitched in a higher key. Bengel, at this point, interposes an entire interval of a night, and thinks that a new discourse begins here. It seems a needless view, and is very unnatural. [Now is the Son of Man glorified, etc., etc.] This is a deep saying, and not least so because both the verbs are in the past tense. Literally rendered in each case, the verb should be "has been glorified." This is not an uncommon mode of speech. The glorification is so near, so certain, so complete, that it is spoken of as a thing accomplished, and even past. It was accomplished in purpose, and in a few hours would be accomplished in reality. (So John 17:4.) The meaning of our Lord may probably be paraphrased thus: "Now has the time come that I, the Son of Man, should be glorified, by actually dying as man's substitute, and shedding my blood for the sins of the world. Now has the time come that God the Father should receive the highest glory by my sacrifice on the cross." Let it be noted that the Lord regards His own atoning death on the cross as the most glorious part of His work on earth; and that nothing so tends to glorify the Father's attributes of justice, holiness, mercy, and faithfulness to His promises, as the death of the Son. Let it be noted that the Lord does not speak of His death as a punishment, or disgrace, or humiliation, but as an event most glorious,— glorifying both to Himself and to the Father. So Christians should learn to "glory in the cross." If we do not take this view, and adhere to a strictly literal rendering of the verb glorified, as past, as Hengstenberg does, we must suppose it to mean, "Now at last, by my perfect righteousness in life and willingness to suffer in death, I, the Son of man, have received glory, and my Father at the same time has received glory through Me." But the other interpretation, taking the past tense for the present or future, is better. "The sacrifice has begun. The last act of my redeeming work,— specially glorifying myself and my Father,— has actually commenced or is commencing." Augustine and Ecolampadius hold that the expression, "Now is the Son of Man glorified," has a special reference to the glory which surrounds our Lord when the wicked are all put away from Him, and He is attended only by saints. This peculiar glory was on Him when Judas Iscariot went out, and left Him and His faithful disciples alone. v32.—[If God be glorified in him, etc.] This verse may be paraphrased as follows: "If God the Father be specially glorified in all His attributes by my death, He shall proceed at once to place special glory on Me, for my personal work, and shall do it without delay, by raising Me from the dead, and placing Me at His right hand." It is like the famous passage in Philippians: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him." It is the same idea that we have in the seventeenth chapter more fully: "I have glorified Thee on the earth;— now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self." (Philippians 2:9; John 17:5.) If the Son, on the one hand, specially glorifies the Father's attributes of holiness, justice, and mercy, by satisfying all His demands with His own precious blood on the cross, so, on the other hand, the Father specially glorifies the Son, by exalting Him above all Kings, raising Him from the dead, and giving Him a name above every name. "In Himself" must refer to that special and peculiar glory which, in the counsels of the blessed Trinity, is conferred on the Second Person, on account of His incarnation, cross, and passion. It is hardly needful to remind Christians that "if" does not imply any doubtfulness, but is rather equivalent to "since," as in Colossians 3:1 : "If ye then be risen with Christ." If anyone wishes to adhere rigidly to the past tense in the first "glorified" of this verse, it undoubtedly makes excellent meaning. "If God the Father has been glorified on the earth by my life and perfect obedience to His law, He will also glorify Me in my own person, by raising Me from the dead, and placing Me at His own right hand, and that very soon." But I doubt this being the full meaning, for the reasons given in the preceding verse. The perfect harmony and co-operation of the Persons in the blessed Trinity shine out here. The Son glorifies the Father, and the Father glorifies the Son. The Son shows the world by His death how holy and just is the Father, and how He hates sin. The Father shows the world, by raising and exalting the Son to glory, how He delights in the redemption for sinners which the Son has accomplished. Chrysostom thinks, that "straightway glorify Him" must refer to the special signs and wonders which appeared from the very time our Lord was on the cross. "So the sun was darkened, the rocks rent, the veil of the temple parted, many bodies of the saints arose, the tomb had its seal, the guards sat by, and while a stone lay on the grave, the body rose." Musculus remarks, that here you have the great principle asserted which is always true: "Those who glorify God shall be glorified by God." v33.—[Little children.] This is the only time our Lord ever calls His disciples by this name. It was evidently a term of affection and compassion, like the language of a father speaking to children whom he is about to leave alone as orphans in the world. "My believing followers, whom I love and regard as my children." Observe that the expression is not used till Judas has gone away. Unbelievers are not to be addressed as Christ's children. [Yet a little while I am with you.] This seems to mean, "I am only staying a very little longer with you. The time is short. The hour approaches when we must part. Give me your best attention while I talk to you for the last time before I go." [Ye shall seek Me.] It is not quite clear what this means. Of course it cannot refer to the time after the resurrection, when the disciples were fully convinced that "the Lord had risen." Much less can it refer to the time after the ascension. I can only suppose it means, "After my death ye shall be perplexed, amazed, and confounded for a little season, wanting Me, seeking Me, wishing for Me, and wondering where I am gone. The very moment the little child is left alone by mother or nurse, it begins to cry after her and want her. So will it be with you." [And as I said unto the Jews, etc.] This sentence can only mean, "The words that I said to the Jews will soon apply to you also, though in a very different sense. Whither I am going you cannot follow Me. You will follow Me hereafter; but at present there is a gulf between us, and you will not see Me." Of course the words applied to the Jews meant that Jesus was going to a place where spiritually and morally the Jews were unfit to go, and in their impenitent state could not go. The words applied to the disciples only meant that Jesus was going into a world where they could not follow Him till they died. They were remaining on earth, and He was going to heaven. Hengstenberg observes, that this is the only place in which Jesus ever spoke to His disciples concerning "the Jews." Elsewhere He uses the expression in speaking to the Samaritan woman (John 4:22) and before Caiaphas and Pilate. v34.—[A new commandment, etc.] The immense importance of Christian love or charity cannot possibly be shown more strikingly than by the way that it is urged on the disciples in this place. Here is our Lord leaving the world, speaking for the last time, and giving His last charge to His disciples. The very first subject He takes up and presses on them, is the great duty of loving one another, and that with no common love; but after the same patient, tender, unwearied manner that He has loved them. Love must needs be a very rare and important grace to be so spoken of! The want of it must needs be a plain proof that a man is no true disciple of Christ. How vast the extent of Christian love ought to be! The measure and standard of it is the love wherewith Christ loved us. His was a love even to death. Melancthon points out our Lord's great desire to promote unity and concord among professing Christians, by His dwelling so much on love before He left the world. Why did our Lord call love a "new" commandment? This is a rather difficult question, and has called forth great variety of opinions. One thing only is very clear. Jesus did not mean to say that "love" was a grace peculiar to the Gospel, and was nowhere taught in the law of Moses. To say this, is a mark of great ignorance. The point is set at rest by the words in Leviticus 19:18 : "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." What then does this word "new" mean? Some think, as Chrysostom, that our Lord refers to the degree with which Christians should love,— even as He had loved them. This was a new and higher standard than had been yet known. Hitherto, as Cyril says, men were to love others as themselves. Now they were to love them more than themselves.— Some think that our Lord refers to the great duty of Christians to love one another, and cling to one another with a special and peculiar love, over and above the love they had generally to all mankind. This was in a sense a novelty.— Some think that our Lord only meant that He renewed and recreated the great law of love, and raised it to so much higher a position than it had ever held among the Jews, that it might be truly called a "new commandment." The parable of the good Samaritan shows how little the Jews realized the duty of loving their neighbours. He had in view the utter neglect into which the law of love had fallen among Jewish teachers like the Pharisees, and like Isaac digging the earth out of the old well, would give the law a second beginning, as if it were new. Some, as Maldonatus and Suicer, think that the expression is only a Hebraism, and that "new," "rare," and "excellent" are synonymous. Thus a new name, a new song, new wine. (Revelation 2:17; Psalms 98:1; Matthew 26:29.) Perhaps there is something in each and all of these views. One thing is very certain: nothing could exalt the value of love so highly as to call it "a new commandment." Scott observes, that the law of love to others "was now to be explained with new clearness, enforced by new motives and obligations, illustrated by a new example, and obeyed in a new manner." v35.—[By this shall all men know, etc.] There can be no mistake about these words. Love was to be the grand characteristic, the distinguishing mark of Christ's disciples. Let us note that our Lord does not name gifts, or miracles, or intellectual attainments, but love, the simple grace of love, a grace within reach of the poorest, lowliest believer, as the evidence of discipleship. No love, no grace, no regeneration, no true Christianity! Musculus observes, with withering scorn, how little likeness there is between our Lord's mark of discipleship, and the dresses, beads, fastings, and self-imposed austerities of the Church of Rome. Let us note what a heavy condemnation this verse pronounces on sectarianism, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, party-spirit, strife, bitterness, needless controversy between Christian and Christian. Let us note how far from satisfactory is the state of those who are content with sound doctrinal opinions, and orthodox correct views of the Gospel, while in their daily life they give way to ill temper, ill nature, malice, envy, quarrelling, squabbling, bickering, surliness, passion, snappish language, and crossness of word and manner. Such persons, whether they know it or not, are daily proclaiming that they are not Christ's disciples. It is nonsense to talk about justification, and regeneration, and election, and conversion, and the uselessness of works, unless people can see in us practical Christian love. Whitby remarks that in the primitive ages the mutual love of Christians was notorious among heathens. "See how these Christians love one another," was a common saying, according to Tertullian. Even Julian the apostate proposed them to the heathen as a pattern in this respect. v36.—[Simon Peter...Lord, whither goest Thou?] Here, as elsewhere, the forward, impulsive spirit of Peter prompts him to ask anxiously what our Lord meant by talking of going: "Whither goest Thou?" Can we doubt however that in this question he was the spokesman of all? How very little the disciples had ever comprehended our Lord's repeated saying that He must be taken prisoner, crucified, and die, we see in this place. Often as He had told them He must die, they had never realized it, and are startled when He talks of going away. It is marvelous how much religious teaching men may have, and yet not take it in, receive, or believe it, especially when it contradicts preconceived notions. [Jesus answered him, etc.] Our Lord graciously explains here a part of His meaning. He does not explicitly tell Peter where He is going; but He tells him He is going to a place where Peter cannot follow Him now during his lifetime, but will follow Him after his death, at a future date. It is not unlikely, as Cyril observes, that these words, "Thou shalt follow Me," pointed to the manner of Peter's death by crucifixion. He was to walk in his Master's steps, and enter heaven by the same road. v37.—[Peter said...Lord, why...follow Thee now, etc.] This question shows how little Peter realized what our Lord fully meant, and the nearness of His death on the cross. "Why cannot I follow Thee now? Where is the place Thou art going to on earth, where I am not willing and ready to follow Thee? I love Thee so much, and am so determined to cling to Thee, that I am ready to lay down my life rather than be separate from Thee." These words were well meant, and Peter never doubted perhaps that he could stand to them. But he did not know his own heart. There was more feeling than principle in his declaration. He did not see all that was in himself. Let us note the mischief of self-ignorance. Let us pray for humility. Let us beware of over-confidence in our own courage and steadfastness. Pride goeth before a fall. v38.—[Jesus answered him, Wilt thou, etc.] Our Lord's meaning appears to be, "Wilt thou really and truly lay down thy life for Me? Thou little knowest thy own weakness and feebleness. I tell thee in the most solemn answer, that this very night, before the cock crow, before sunrise, thou, even thou, wilt deny three times that thou knowest Me. So far from laying down thy life, thou wilt try to save thy life by cowardly denying that thou hast anything to do with Me." Let us note the wonderful foreknowledge of our Lord. What an unlikely thing it seemed that such a professor should fall so far and so soon. Yet our Lord foresaw it all! Let us note the wonderful kindness and condescension of Jesus. He knew perfectly well the weakness and feebleness of His chief disciple, and yet never rejected him, and even raised him again after his fall. Christians should be men of very pitiful and tender feelings toward weak brethren. Their inconsistencies may be very great and provoking, but we must never forget our Lord's dealing with Simon Peter. The three verses we have now read are rich in precious truth. For eighteen centuries they have been peculiarly dear to Christ's believing servants in every part of the world. Many are the sick rooms which they have lightened! Many are the dying hearts which they have cheered! Let us see what they contain. We have, first, in this passage a precious remedy against an old disease. That disease is trouble of heart. That remedy is faith. Heart-trouble is the commonest thing in the world. No rank, or class, or condition is exempt from it. No bars, or bolts, or locks can keep it out. Partly from inward causes and partly from outward,— partly from the body and partly from the mind,— partly from what we love and partly from what we fear, the journey of life is full of trouble. Even the best of Christians have many bitter cups to drink between grace and glory. Even the holiest saints find the world a vale of tears. Faith in the Lord Jesus is the only sure medicine for troubled hearts. To believe more thoroughly, trust more entirely, rest more unreservedly, lay hold more firmly, lean back more completely,— this is the prescription which our Master urges on the attention of all His disciples. No doubt the members of that little band which sat round the table at the last supper, had believed already. They had proved the reality of their faith by giving up everything for Christ's sake. Yet what does their Lord say to them here? Once more He presses on them the old lesson, the lesson with which they first began: "Believe! Believe more! Believe on Me!" (Isaiah 26:3.) Never let us forget that there are degrees in faith, and that there is a wide difference between weak and strong believers. The weakest faith is enough to give a man a saving interest in Christ, and ought not to be despised, but it will not give a man such inward comfort as a strong faith. Vagueness and dimness of perception are the defect of weak believers. They do not see clearly what they believe and why they believe. In such cases more faith is the one thing needed. Like Peter on the water, they need to look more steadily at Jesus, and less at the waves and wind. Is it not written, "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee"? (Isaiah 26:3.) We have, secondly, in this passage, a very comfortable account of heaven, or the future abode of saints. It is but little that we understand about heaven while we are here in the body, and that little is generally taught us in the Bible by negatives much more than positives. But here, at any rate, there are some plain things. Heaven is "a Father's house,"— the house of that God of whom Jesus says, "I go to my Father, and your Father." It is, in a word, home: the home of Christ and Christians. This is a sweet and touching expression. Home, as we all know, is the place where we are generally loved for our own sakes, and not for our gifts or possessions; the place where we are loved to the end, never forgotten, and always welcome. This is one idea of heaven. Believers are in a strange land, and at school, in this life. In the life to come they will be at home. Heaven is a place of "mansions",— of lasting, permanent, and eternal dwellings. Here in the body we are in lodgings, tents, and tabernacles, and must submit to many changes. In heaven we shall be settled at last, and go out no more. "Here we have no continuing city." (Hebrews 13:14.) Our house not made with hands shall never be taken down. Heaven is a place of "many mansions." There will be room for all believers and room for all sorts, for little saints as well as great ones, for the weakest believer as well as for the strongest. The feeblest child of God need not fear there will be no place for him. None will be shut out but impenitent sinners and obstinate unbelievers. Heaven is a place where Christ Himself shall be present. He will not be content to dwell without His people:— "Where I am, there ye shall be also." We need not think that we shall be alone and neglected. Our Savior,— our elder Brother,— our Redeemer, who loved us and gave Himself for us, shall be in the midst of us forever. What we shall see, and whom we shall see in heaven, we cannot fully conceive yet, while we are in the body. But one thing is certain: we shall see Christ. Let these things sink down into our minds. To the worldly and careless they may seem nothing at all. To all who feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of God they are full of unspeakable comfort. If we hope to be in heaven it is pleasant to know what heaven is like. We have, lastly, in this passage, a solid ground for expecting good things to come. The evil heart of unbelief within us is apt to rob us of our comfort about heaven. "We wish we could think it was all true."— "We fear we shall never be admitted into heaven."— Let us hear what Jesus says to encourage us. One cheering word is this,— "I go to prepare a place for you." Heaven is a prepared place for a prepared people: a place which we shall find Christ Himself has made ready for true Christians. He has prepared it by procuring a right for every sinner who believes to enter in. None can stop us, and say we have no business there.— He has prepared it by going before us as our Head and Representative, and taking possession of it for all the members of His mystical body. As our Forerunner He has marched in, leading captivity captive, and has planted His banner in the land of glory.— He has prepared it by carrying our names with Him as our High Priest into the holy of holies, and making angels ready to receive us. They that enter heaven will find they are neither unknown nor unexpected. Another cheering word is this,— "I will come again and receive you unto myself." Christ will not wait for believers to come up to Him, but will come down to them, to raise them from their graves and escort them to their heavenly home. As Joseph came to meet Jacob, so will Jesus come to call His people together and guide them to their inheritance. The second advent ought never to be forgotten. Great is the blessedness of looking back to Christ coming the first time to suffer for us, but no less great is the comfort of looking forward to Christ coming the second time, to raise and reward His saints. Let us leave the whole passage with solemnized feelings and serious self-examination. How much they miss who live in a dying world and yet know nothing of God as their Father and Christ as their Savior! How much they possess who live the life of faith in the Son of God, and believe in Jesus! With all their weaknesses and crosses they have that which the world can neither give nor take away. They have a true Friend while they live, and a true home when they die. ================== Notes— v1.—[Let not...heart...be troubled.] We must carefully remember that there is no break between the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth chapters. Our Lord is continuing the discourse He began after the Lord's Supper and the departure of Judas, in the presence of the eleven faithful disciples. A slight pause there certainly seems to be, since He turns from Peter, to whom He had been speaking individually, to the whole body of the Apostles, and addresses them collectively. But the place, the time, and the audience are all one. Our Lord's great object throughout this and the two following chapters seems clear and plain. He desired to comfort, stablish, and build up His downcast disciples. He saw their "hearts were troubled" from a variety of causes,— partly by seeing their Master "troubled in Spirit" (John 13:21),— partly by hearing that one of them should betray Him,— partly by the mysterious departure of Judas,— partly by their Master's announcement that He should only be a little time longer with them, and that at last they could not come with Him,— and partly by the warning addressed to Peter, that he would deny his Master thrice. For all these reasons this little company of weak believers was disquieted and cast down and anxious. Their gracious Master saw it, and proceeded to give them encouragement: "Let not your heart be troubled." It will be noted that He uses the singular number "your heart," not "your hearts." He means "the heart of any one of you." Hengstenberg gives the following list of the grounds of comfort which the chapter contains, in systematic order, which well deserves attention, (a) The first encouragement is, that to the disciples of Christ heaven is sure (John 14:2-3). (b) The second encouragement is, that disciples have in Christ a certain way to heaven (John 14:4-11). (c) The third encouragement is, that disciples need not fear that with the departure of Christ His work will cease (John 14:12-14). (d) The fourth encouragement is, that in the absence of Christ disciples will have the help of the Spirit (John 14:15-17). (e) The fifth encouragement is, that Christ will not leave His people for ever, but will come back again (John 14:18-24). (f) The sixth encouragement is, that the Spirit will teach the disciples and supply their want of understanding when left alone (John 14:25-26). (g) Finally, the seventh encouragement is, that the legacy of peace will be left to cheer them in their Master's absence (John 14:27). These seven points are well worthy the attention of all believers in every age, and are as useful now as when first pressed on the eleven. Lightfoot thinks one principal cause of the disciples' trouble, was their disappointment at seeing their Jewish expectations of a temporal kingdom under a temporal Messiah failing and coming to an end. [Ye believe...God...believe...Me.] The Gospel words rendered "ye believe," and "believe," in this place, admit of being differently translated; and it is impossible to say certainly whether our English version is right. Some, as Luther, think both words should be indicative: "ye believe and ye believe." Some think both should be imperative: "believe and believe." My own opinion is decided, that the English version is right. It seems[s] to me to express exactly the state of mind in which the disciples were. They did, as pious Jews, believe in God already. They needed, as young Christians, to be taught to believe more thoroughly in Christ. Among those who think that both verbs are imperative are Cyril, Augustine, Lampe, Stier, Hengstenberg, and Alford. Among those who adhere to our English version, and make the first "believe" indicative, and the second imperative, are Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, and Olshausen. Let us note that faith, and specially more strong and distinct faith in Christ, is the truest remedy for trouble of heart. But we must never forget that true faith admits of growth and degrees. There is a wide gulf between little and great faith. Ferusremarksthat our Lord does not say "Believe my divinity," but, Believe personally in Me. Toletus observes that our Lord here teaches that Jewish faith was somewhat distinct from Christian faith. The Jew, not seeing clearly the Trinity, dwelt chiefly on the unity of God. The Christian was intended to see three Persons in the Godhead. Wordsworth remarks that the verb "to believe," followed by a preposition and an accusative, is never applied to any but God in the New Testament. v2.—[In my Father's house.] This phrase can bear only one meaning. It is my Father's house in heaven: an expression accommodated to our weakness. God needs no literal house, with walls and roof, as we do. But where He dwells is called His house. (See Deuteronomy 26:15; Psalms 33:14; 2 Chronicles 30:27; 2 Corinthians 5:1.) There is something very touching and comforting in the thought that the heaven we go to is "our Father's house." It is home. [There are many mansions.] The word rendered "mansions" means literally "abiding-places." It is only used here, and in John 14:23, "abode." We need not doubt that there is an intentional contrast between the unchanging, unvarying house in heaven, and the changing, uncertain dwellings of this world. Here we are ever moving: there we shall no more go out. (See also Hebrews 13:14.) Our Lord's intention seems to be to comfort His disciples by the thought that nothing could cast them out of the heavenly house. They might be left alone by Him on earth; they might be even cast out of the Jewish Church, and find no resting-place or refuge on earth; but there would be always room enough for them in heaven, and a house from which they would never be expelled. "Fear not! There is room enough in heaven." Chrysostom, Augustine, and several other ancient writers think the "many mansions" mean the degrees of glory. But the argument in favour of the idea does not appear to me satisfactory. Bishop Hall, Wordsworth, and some few modern writers take the same view. That there are degrees of glory in heaven is undoubtedly true, but I do not think it is the truth of this text. The modern idea, that our Lord meant that heaven was a place for all sorts of creeds and religions, seems utterly unwarranted by the text. From the whole context He is evidently speaking for the special comfort of Christians. Lightfoot's idea, that our Lord meant to teach the passing away of the Jewish economy, and the admission of all nations into heaven by faith in Christ, seems fanciful. [If it were not so...told you.] This is a gracious way of assuring the disciples that they might have confidence that what their Lord said was true. It is the tender manner of a parent speaking to a child. "Do not be afraid because I am leaving you. There is plenty of room for you in heaven. You will get there safe at last. If there was the least uncertainty about it, I would tell you." We may remember that our Lord had called the Apostles "little children" only a few minutes before. (John 13:33.) [I go...prepare...place...you.] This sentence is meant to be another ground of comfort. One of the reasons why our Lord went away, He says, was to get ready a dwelling-place for His disciples. It is like the expression in the Hebrews, "the forerunner." (Hebrews 6:20; see also Numbers 10:33.) The manner in which Christ prepares a place for His people is mysterious and yet not inexplicable. He enters heaven as their High Priest, presenting the merit of His sacrifice for their sins. He removes all barriers that sin made between them and God. He appears as their proxy and representative, and claims a right of entry for all His believing members. He intercedes continually for them at God's right hand; and makes them always acceptable in Himself, though unworthy in themselves. He bears their names mystically, as the High Priest, on His breast; and introduces them to the court of heaven before they get there. That heaven is a prepared place for a prepared people is a very cheering and animating thought. When we arrive there we shall not be in a strange land. We shall find we have been known and thought of before we got there. v3.—[And if I go...come again...receive...myself.] These words contain another strong consolation. Our Lord tells the disciples that if He does go away, they must not think it is for ever. He means to come again and take them all home, and gather them round Him in one united family to part no more. Poole remarks ''the particle 'if' in this place denotes no uncertainty of the thing, but hath the force of although, or after that." (See also Colossians 3:1.) Many think, as Stier, that the "coming again" here spoken of means Christ's coming to His disciples after His resurrection, or Christ's coming spiritually to His people in comfort and help even now, or Christ's coming to remove them at last by death. I cannot think so. I believe that, as a rule, when Christ speaks of coming again, both here and elsewhere, He means His own personal second advent at the end of this dispensation. The Greek word rendered "I will come," is in the present tense, and the same that is used in Revelation 22:20 : "I come quickly." The first and second advents are the two great events to which the minds of all Christians should be directed. This is Cyril's view of the passage, and Bishop Hall's. [That where I am...ye...also.] Here is one more comfort. The final end of Christ's going away and coming again is, that at last His disciples may be once more with Him, and enjoy His company for ever. ''We part; but we shall meet again, and part no more." Let us note that one of the simplest, plainest ideas of heaven is here. It is being "ever with the Lord." Whatever else we see or do not see in heaven, we shall see Christ. Whatever kind of a place, it is a place where Christ is. (Philippians 1:23. 1 Thessalonians 4:17.) We should mark in these verses how much better Jesus speaks of believers than they speak of themselves. He says to His disciples, "whither I go ye know, and the way ye know." And yet Thomas at once breaks in with the remark, "Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?" The apparent contradiction demands explanation. It is more seeming than real. Certainly, in one point of view, the knowledge of the disciples was very small. They knew little before the crucifixion and resurrection compared to what they might have known, and little compared to what they afterwards knew after the day of Pentecost. About our Lord's purpose in coming into the world, about His sacrificial death and substitution for us on the cross, their ignorance was glaring and great. It might well be said, that they "knew in part" only, and were children in understanding. And yet, in another point of view, the knowledge of the disciples was very great. They knew far more than the great majority of the Jewish nation, and received truths which the Scribes and Pharisees entirely rejected. Compared to the world around them, they were in the highest sense enlightened. They knew and believed that their Master was the promised Messiah, the Son of the living God; and to know Him was the first step towards heaven. All things go by comparison. Before we lightly esteem the disciples because of their ignorance, let us take care that we do not underrate their knowledge. They knew more precious truth than they were aware of themselves. Their hearts were better than their heads. The plain truth is, that all believers are apt to undervalue the work of the Spirit in their own souls, and to fancy they know nothing because they do not know everything. Many true Christians are thought more of in heaven while they live, than they think of themselves, and will find it out to their surprise at the last day. There is One above who takes far more account of heart knowledge than head-knowledge. Many go mourning all the way to heaven because they know so little, and fancy they will miss the way altogether, and yet have hearts with which God is well pleased. We should mark, secondly, in these verses, what glorious names the Lord Jesus gives to Himself. He says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." The fullness of these precious words can probably never be taken in by man. He that attempts to unfold them does little more than scratch the surface of a rich soil. Christ is "the way,"— the way to heaven and peace with God. He is not only the guide, and teacher, and lawgiver, like Moses; He is Himself the door, the ladder, and the road, through whom we must draw near to God. He has opened the way to the tree of life, which was closed when Adam and Eve fell, by the satisfaction He made for us on the cross. Through His blood we may draw near with boldness, and have access with confidence into God's presence. Christ is "the truth,"— the whole substance of true religion which the mind of man requires. Without Him the wisest heathen groped in gross darkness and knew nothing about God. Before He came even the Jews saw "through a glass darkly," and discerned nothing distinctly under the types, figures, and ceremonies of the Mosaic law. Christ is the whole truth, and meets and satisfies every desire of the human mind. Christ is "the life,"— the sinner's title to eternal life and pardon, the believer's root of spiritual life and holiness, the surety of the Christian's resurrection life. He that believeth on Christ hath everlasting life. He that abideth in Him, as the branch abides in the vine, shall bring forth much fruit. He that believeth on Him, though he were dead, yet shall he live. The root of all life, for soul and for body, is Christ. Forever let us grasp and hold fast these truths. To use Christ daily as the way,— to believe Christ daily as the truth,— to live on Christ daily as the life,— this is to be a well-informed, a thoroughly furnished and an established Christian. We should mark, thirdly, in these verses, how expressly the Lord Jesus shuts out all ways of salvation but Himself. "No man," He declares, "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me." It avails nothing that a man is clever, learned, highly gifted, amiable, charitable, kind-hearted, and zealous about some sort of religion. All this will not save his soul if he does not draw near to God by Christ's atonement, and make use of God's own Son as his Mediator and Savior. God is so holy that all men are guilty and debtors in His sight. Sin is so sinful that no mortal man can make satisfaction for it. There must be a mediator, a ransom-payer, a redeemer, between ourselves and God, or else we can never be saved. There is only one door, one bridge, one ladder, between earth and heaven,— the crucified Son of God. Whoever will enter in by that door may be saved; but to him who refuses to use that door the Bible holds out, no hope at all. Without shedding of blood there is no remission. Let us beware, if we love life, of supposing that mere earnestness will take a man to heaven, though he know nothing of Christ. The idea is a deadly and ruinous error. Sincerity will never wipe away our sins. It is not true that every man will be saved by his own religion, no matter what he believes, so long as he is diligent and sincere. We must not pretend to be wiser than God. Christ has said, and Christ will stand to it, "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me." We should mark, lastly, in these verses, how close and mysterious is the union of God the Father and God the Son. Four times over this mighty truth is put before us in words that cannot be mistaken. "If ye had known Me, ye would have known my Father."— "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father."— "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me."— "The Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works." Sayings like these are full of deep mystery. We have no eyes to see their meaning fully,— no line to fathom it,— no language to express it,— no mind to take it in. We must be content to believe when we cannot explain, and to admire and revere when we cannot interpret. Let it suffice us to know and hold that the Father is God and the Son is God, and yet that they are one in essence though two distinct Persons,— ineffably one, and yet ineffably distinct. These are high things, and we cannot attain to a full comprehension of them. Let us however take comfort in the simple truth, that Christ is very God of very God; equal with the Father in all things, and One with Him. He who loved us, and shed His blood for us on the cross, and bids us trust Him for pardon, is no mere man like ourselves. He is "God over all, blessed forever," and able to save to the uttermost the chief of sinners. Though our sins be as scarlet, He can make them white as snow. He that casts his soul on Christ has an Almighty Friend,— a Friend who is One with the Father, and very God. ================== Notes— v4.—[And whither I go ye know...way ye know.] This remarkable sentence was evidently meant to stir and cheer the disciples, by reminding them of what their Master had repeatedly told them. It is as though our Lord said, "Do not be cast down by my going away, as if you had never heard Me say anything about heaven and the way to heaven. Awake from your despondency, stir up your memories. Surely you know, if you reflect a little, that I have often told you all about it." Is it not, again, like a tender parent saying to a frightened child, who says he knows not what to do, and is ready to sit down in despair, "Come: you know well enough, if you will only consider"? Poole observes on this verse, "It is pleasant to notice how Christ continueth His discourse to the disciples, like a mother speaking to a little child crying after her when she prepares herself to go abroad. The child cries; the mother bids it be still, for she is only going to a friend's house. It still cries; she tells it she is only going to prepare a place for it there, where it will be much happier than at home. It is not yet satisfied; she tells it again, that though she goes, she will come again, and then it shall go with her, and she will part from it no more. The child is yet impatient; she endeavoureth to still it, telling it that it knoweth whither it goeth, and it knows the way by which, if need be, it may come to her." Let us note that disciples often know more than they suppose or admit, but do not use their knowledge, or keep it ready for use. Ferus compares them to infants lying in their cradles, who have fathers and fortunes, but do not know it. Let us note that Christ looks graciously on the little knowledge His people possess, and makes the most of it. He can make allowance for their minds being clouded by grief or trouble, and their consequent forgetfulness of truth for a season. v5.—[Thomas saith unto Him, etc.] This verse shows how foolishly a disciple may talk under the influence of despondency. Here is one of the eleven faithful Apostles declaring flatly that they neither knew where their Master was going, nor the way! The saying is characteristic of the man. Thomas always appears a doubting, slow-minded believer. But we must not judge disciples too sharply for words spoken under deep distress. When the passions and affections are much stirred, the tongue often runs away with a man, and he speaks unadvisedly. Nor must we forget that disciples have very different gifts. All have not equally strong faith, clear understanding, and good memory. Trapp quaintly remarks that believers in the frame of Thomas are like people who hunt for their keys and purses, when they have got them in their pockets. v6.—[Jesus saith...I...way...truth...life.] This wonderful saying is a brilliant example of a foolish remark calling out a great truth from our Lord's lips. To the ill-natured remark of the Pharisees we owe the parable of the Prodigal Son (see Luke chapter 15); to the fretful complaint of Thomas we owe one of the grandest texts in Scripture. It is one of those deep utterances which no exposition can thoroughly unfold and exhaust. When our Lord says, "I am the way," He means, "the Father's house is to be reached through my mediation and atonement. Faith in Me is the key to heaven. He that believeth in Me is in the right road." When our Lord says, "I am the truth," He means, "The root of all knowledge is to know Me. I am the true Messiah to whom all revelation points, the truth of which the Old Testament ceremonies and sacrifices were a figure and shadow. He that really knows Me, knows enough to take him safe to heaven, though he may not know many things, and may be troubled at his own ignorance." When our Lord says "I am the life," He means, "I am the Root and Fountain of all life in religion, the Redeemer from death and the Giver of everlasting life. He that knows and believes in Me, however weak and ignorant he may feel, has spiritual life now, and will have a glorious life in my Father's house hereafter." Some think that the three great words in this sentence should be taken together, and that our Lord meant, "I am the true and living way." Yet the general opinion of the best commentators is decidedly unfavourable to this view of the sentence. To my own mind it cuts down and impoverishes a great and deep saying. Musculus remarks that no prophet, teacher, or apostle ever used such words as these. They are the language of one who knew that He was God. [No man cometh...Father but by me.] Here our Lord teaches that He is not merely the way to our Father's home in heaven, but that there is no other way, and that men must either go to heaven by His atonement or not go there at all. It is a clear distinct limitation of heaven to those who believe on Christ. None else will enter in there. Rejecting Christ they lose all. We should mark carefully what an unanswerable argument this sentence supplies against the modern notion that it does not matter what a man believes,— that all religions will lead men to heaven if they are sincere,— that creeds and doctrines are of no importance,— that heaven is a place for all mankind— whether heathen, Mahometan, or Christian,— and that the Fatherhood of God is enough to save all at last, of all sects, kinds, and characters! Our Lord's words should never be forgotten. "There is no way to the Father but by Me." God is a Father to none but to those who believe in Christ. In short, there are not many ways to heaven. There is only one way. "Coming to the Father," in this place, we must remark, includes not only coming to Him in glory at the last, but coming to Him in a friendly relation for peace and comfort now in this life. "By Me," is literally, "through" Me,— as a door a gate, a road, a path, an entrance. It is an expression which would be peculiarly expressive to the Jews, taught from childhood to draw near to God only through the priests. v7.—[If...known me...Father also.] This is a deep saying, like every saying which handles the mysterious union of the Father and the Son in John's Gospel. The meaning seems to be, "If you had rightly, properly, and perfectly known Me, as the Divine Messiah, in all the fullness of my nature, you would then have known more of that Father to whom I am inseparably united. No one can rightly know Me without knowing the Father, because I and the Father are One." [And from henceforth...known...seen Him.] The meaning of these words seems to be, "Understand from this time forward, that in knowing Me you know the Father, and in seeing Me see the Father, so far as the Father can be seen and known by man." Although the Son and the Father are two distinct persons in the Trinity, yet there is so close and mysterious a union between them that He who sees and knows the Son, in a certain sense, sees and knows the Father. Is it not written of the Son that "He is the express image of the Father"? (Hebrews 1:3.) The whole difficulty of the verse arises from the extreme mysteriousness of its subject. The relation between the eternal Father and the eternal Son and the eternal Spirit, who, while three Persons, are one God, is precisely one of those things which we have no minds to take in, and no language to express. We must often be content to believe and reverence it, without attempting to explain it. This only we may lay down with certainty, as a great canon and maxim,— the more we know of Christ, "the more we know of the Father." v8.—[Philip...shew us the Father...sufficeth us.] We are not told Philip's motive in making this request. Perhaps, like Moses, he and the other disciples had a pious desire to see a more full vision and revelation of God's glory, as an authentication of their Master's Divine mission. "Show me Thy glory." (Exodus 33:18.) Perhaps Philip's petition is recorded to show how little clear knowledge the Apostles yet had of their Master's nature, and how little they realized that He and the Father were One:— "If we could only see once for all the Divine Being whom Thou dost call the Father, it would be sufficient. We should be satisfied and our doubts would be removed." At any rate we have no right to think that Philip spoke like the unbelieving Jews, who always pretended to want signs and wonders. Whatever sense we put on the words, we must carefully remember not to judge Philip too harshly. Living as we do in the nineteenth century, amidst light and creeds and knowledge, we can have faint ideas of the extreme difficulty that must have been felt by the disciples in fully realizing their Master's nature, in the days when He was "in the form of a Servant," and under a veil of poverty, weakness, and humiliation. Melancthon remarks that Philip's petition represents the natural wish of man in every age. Men feel an inward craving everywhere to see God. v9.—[Jesus saith...so long time...Philip.] This verse is undoubtedly a gentle rebuke. The expression, "so long time," is noteworthy, when we remember that Philip was one of the very first disciples whom Jesus called. (See John 1:43.) The meaning seems to be, "After three long years, Philip, dost thou not yet thoroughly know and understand who I am?" [He...seen me...seen the Father.] This deep sentence can only mean, "He that hath thoroughly seen me with the eye of faith, and realized that I am the eternal Son, the Divine Messiah, hath seen as much of my Father, whose express image I am, as mortal man can comprehend." There is so close and intimate a union between the persons in the Trinity, that he who sees the Son sees the Father. And yet we must carefully beware that we do not, like some heretics, "confound the Persons." The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. Musculus observes that to see with bodily eyes is one thing, and to see with the eyes of faith quite another. [And how sayest thou...show...Father.] This question is a further gentle rebuke of Philip's ignorance. "What dost thou mean by saying, Show us the Father? What clear knowledge of Me canst thou have if thou canst ask such a question?" Let us note how Jesus calls "Philip" by his name. It was doubtless meant to prick his conscience. "Thou, Philip, and old disciple, so ignorant! Ought not thou, after following and hearing Me for three years to have known better than this?" v10.—[Believest thou not...I...in Father...in Me.] This question continues the rebuke to Philip. It means, "Dost thou not yet believe and realize what I have taught,— that there is a mystical union between Me and the Father, and that He is in Me and I in Him?" This question surely seems to indicate that our Lord had often taught His disciples about the union between Himself and the Father. But, like many of the things He taught, the mighty truth passed over their heads at first, and was not remembered till afterwards. How little reason have ministers to complain if their teaching is little regarded, when this was Christ's experience! [The words that I speak...Father...works.] There can be little doubt that this is a very elliptical sentence. The full meaning must be supplied in this way. "The words that I speak to you I speak not independently of the Father; and the works that I do I do not do them independently of the Father. The Father who dwells in Me, speaks in Me and works in Me. My words are words given Me to speak, and my works are works given Me to do, in the eternal counsel between the Father and the Son. Both in speaking and working I and my Father are one. What I speak He speaks, and what I work He works." The whole difficulty of the verse arises from forgetting the close and mysterious and insoluble union between the Persons of the Trinity. How little we realize the fullness of the expression, "The Father dwelleth in Me." v11.—[Believe Me...in the Father...in Me.] Direct instruction follows the rebuke of the preceding verse. Our Lord repeats for the benefit not of Philip only, but of all the eleven, the great doctrine He had so often taught them. "Once more, I say, Believe, all of you, my words, when I say that I and the Father are so closely united that I am in Him and He in Me." The word rendered "believe" in this verse is in the plural number. Our Lord does not address Philip only, but the whole company of the Apostles. What an example we have here of the necessity of repeating instruction over and over again. Our Lord had evidently taught these things before to the eleven, and yet they had either not understood or not remembered. [Or else believe...works' sake.] Here our Lord condescends to the weakness of the disciples. "If you will not believe the close union of Myself and the Father because of my word, believe it because of the works I work. They are such works as no one could work of himself, and without the Father." Let us carefully observe how our Lord here, as elsewhere, specially names His works, or miracles, as testimonies of His nature and Divine mission. To leave out miracles in the list of the evidences of Christianity is a great mistake. These verses are an example of our Lord's tender consideration for the weakness of His disciples. He saw them troubled and faint-hearted at the prospect of being left alone in the world. He cheers them by three promises, peculiarly suited to their circumstances. "A word spoken in season, how good is it!" We have first in this passage, a striking promise about the works that Christians may do. Our Lord says, "He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." The full meaning of this promise is not to be sought in the miracles which the Apostles wrought after Christ left the world. Such a notion seems hardly borne out by facts. We read of no Apostle walking on the water, or raising a person four days dead, like Lazarus. What our Lord has in view seems to be the far greater number of conversions, the far wider spread of the Gospel, which would take place under the ministry of the Apostles, than under his own teaching. That this was the case, we know from the Acts of the Apostles. We read of no sermon preached by Christ, under which three thousand were converted in one day, as they were on the day of Pentecost. In short, "greater works" mean more conversions. There is no greater work possible than the conversion of a soul. Let us admire the condescension of our Master in allowing to the ministry of His weak servants more success than to His own. Let us learn that His visible presence is not absolutely necessary to the progress of His kingdom. He can help forward His cause on earth quite as much by sitting at the right hand of the Father, and sending forth the Holy Ghost, as by walking to and fro in the world. Let us believe that there is nothing too hard or too great for believers to do, so long as their Lord intercedes for them in heaven. Let us work on in faith, and expect great things, though we feel weak and lonely, like the disciples. Our Lord is working with us and for us, though we cannot see Him. It was not so much the sword of Joshua that defeated Amalek, as the intercession of Moses on the hill. (Exodus 17:11.) We have, secondly, in this passage, a striking promise about things that Christians may get by prayer. Our Lord says, "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do. . . If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." These words are a direct encouragement to the simple, yet great duty of praying. Everyone who kneels daily before God, and from his heart "says his prayers," has a right to take comfort in these words. Weak and imperfect as his supplications may be, so long as they are put in Christ's hands, and offered in Christ's name, they shall not be in vain. We have a Friend at Court, an Advocate with the Father; and if we honor Him by sending all our petitions through Him, He pledges His word that they shall succeed. Of course it is taken for granted that the things we ask are for our souls' good, and not mere temporal benefits. "Anything" and "whatsoever" do not include wealth, and money, and worldly prosperity. These things are not always good for us, and our Lord loves us too well to let us have them. But whatever is really good for our souls, we need not doubt we shall have, if we ask in Christ's name. How is it that many true Christians have so little? How is it that they go halting and mourning on the way to heaven, and enjoy so little peace, and show so little strength in Christ's service? The answer is simple and plain. "They have not, because they ask not." They have little because they ask little. They are no better than they are, because they do not ask their Lord to make them better. Our languid desires are the reason of our languid performances. We are not straitened in our Lord, but in ourselves. Happy are they who never forget the words, "Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it." (Psalms 81:10.) He that does much for Christ, and leaves his mark in the world, will always prove to be one who prays much. We have, lastly, in this passage, a striking promise about the Holy Ghost. Our Lord says, "I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, . . . even the Spirit of truth." This is the first time that the Holy Ghost is mentioned as Christ's special gift to His people. Of course we are not to suppose that He did not dwell in the hearts of all the Old Testament saints. But He was given with peculiar influence and power to believers when the New Testament dispensation came in, and this is the special promise of the passage before us. We shall find it useful, therefore, to observe closely the things that are here said about Him. The Holy Ghost is spoken of as "a Person." To apply the language before us to a mere influence or inward feeling, is an unreasonable strain of words. The Holy Ghost is called "the Spirit of truth." It is His special office to apply truth to the hearts of Christians, to guide them into all truth, and to sanctify them by the truth. The Holy Ghost is said to be one whom "the world cannot receive and does not know." His operations are in the strongest sense foolishness to the natural man. The inward feelings of conviction, repentance, faith, hope, fear, and love, which He always produces, are precisely that part of religion which the world cannot understand. The Holy Ghost is said to "dwell in" believers, and to be known of them. They know the feelings that He creates, and the fruits that He produces, though they may not be able to explain them, or see at first whence they come. But they all are what they are,— new men, new creatures, light and salt in the earth, compared to the worldly, by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is given to the Church of the elect, "to abide with them" until Christ comes the second time. He is meant to supply all the need[s] of believers, and to fill up all that is wanting while Christ's visible presence is removed. He is sent to abide with and help them until Christ returns. These are truths of vast importance. Let us take care that we grasp them firmly, and never let them go. Next to the whole truth about Christ, it concerns our safety and peace to see the whole truth about the Holy Ghost. Any doctrine about the Church, the ministry, or the Sacraments, which obscures the Spirit's inward work, or turns it into mere form, is to be avoided as deadly error. Let us never rest till we feel and know that He dwells in us. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." (Romans 8:9.) ================== Notes— v12.—[Verily...works...shall he do also.] Here we have another comforting word addressed to the disciples. They must not suppose there would be an end of miraculous works when their Master went away, and that they would be left weak and helpless, and unable to do anything to arrest the attention of an unbelieving world. On the contrary, our Lord assures them, with two emphatic "verilys," that miracles would not cease with His departure. He would take care that believers should have power to do works like His own, and to confirm their word by signs following. I cannot doubt that this promise refers to the miraculous gifts which the first generation of Christians had power to exercise, as we read every where in the Acts of the Apostles. That the sick were healed, the dead raised, and devils cast out by disciples after the Lord ascended, is quite plain, and this fulfilled the words now before us. I can see no reason to suppose that our Lord meant the promise to be fulfilled after the generation He left on earth was dead. If miracles were continually in the Church, they would cease to be miracles. We never see them in the Bible except at some great crisis in the Church's history. The Irvingite theory, that the Church would always have miraculous gifts if men only had faith seems to me a violent straining of this text. [And greater works...do.] The meaning of these words must be sought in the moral and spiritual miracles which followed the preaching of the Apostles after the day of Pentecost. It could not be truly said that the physical miracles worked by the Apostles in the Acts were greater than those worked by Christ. But it is equally certain that after the day of Pentecost they did far more wonderful works in converting souls than our Lord did. On no occasion did Jesus convert 3000 at one time, and a "great company of priests." [Because I go...Father.] These words must point to the great outpouring of the Holy Ghost which took place after our Lord's ascension into heaven, whereby the miracles of conversion were wrought. There was an immediate and mysterious connection, we must remember, between our Lord ascending up on high and "receiving gifts for men." If He had not gone to the Father the Spirit would not have been sent forth. (Ephesians 4:8.) Melancthon thinks the promise of this text is clearly bound up with the following verse, "He shall do greater works because I go to the Father, and because then whatsoever ye shall ask I will do." v13.—[And whatsoever...ask...will I do.] Here comes another great piece of comfort for the troubled disciples: viz., a promise that Christ will do everything for them which they pray for in His name and for His sake. Whatever help, or strength, or support, or guiding they need, if they ask God for it in Christ's name, Christ will give it. This is one of those texts which authorizes all prayers being made through Christ's mediation, as in Prayer-book collects. The "whatsoever" must of course be taken with the qualifying condition, "whatsoever really good thing ye ask." The connection with the end of the preceding verse should not be overlooked, "When I go to the Father I will do whatsoever ye ask." [That...Father...glorified...Son.] This is a difficult sentence. The meaning probably is, "I will do whatsoever ye ask, that my Father may be glorified by my mediation, by sending into the world a Son through whom sinners can obtain such blessings." Christ's power to do anything that He is asked, brings glory to Him who sent Him. v14.—[If...ask any thing...will do it.] This verse is a repetition of the preceding, to give emphasis and assurance to the promise. It is as if our Lord saw how slow the disciples would be to believe the efficacy of prayer in His name. "Once more I tell you most emphatically, that if you ask anything in my name, I will do it." We should notice both in this verse and the preceding one, that it is not said "If ye ask in my name, the Father will do it;" but "I will do it." v15.—[If ye love...keep...commandments.] Here we have a direct practical exhortation. "If ye really love Me, prove your love not by weeping and lamenting at my departure, but by striving to do my will when I am gone. Doing, and not crying, is the best proof of love." The commandments here mentioned must include all the Lord's moral teaching while on earth, and specially such rules and laws as He had laid down in the "Sermon on the Mount." I cannot but think that in this verse our Lord had in view the disposition of His disciples to give way to grief and distress at His leaving them; and to forget that the true test of love was not useless and barren lamentation, but practical obedience to their Master's commands. Let us notice how our Lord speaks of "my commandments." We never read of Moses or any other servant of God using such an expression. It is the language of one who was one with God the Father, and had power to lay down laws and make statutes for His Church. v16.—[And I...pray the Father, etc.] This verse holds up to the eleven another grand consolation, viz., the gift of another abiding Comforter in place of Christ, even the Holy Ghost. "When I go to heaven I will ask the Father to give you another friend and helper, to be with you and support you in my stead, and never leave you as I do." In this remarkable verse several points demand special notice. One principal point is the mention of all the three persons in the blessed Trinity, the Son praying, the Father giving, the Spirit comforting. When our Lord says, "I will pray the Father and He shall give," we must needs suppose that He accommodates language to our minds. The gift of the Holy Ghost was appointed in the eternal counsels of the Trinity; and we cannot literally say that the gift depended on Christ asking. Moreover, in another place our Lord says, "I will send Him." Burkitt remarks that the future tense here points to Christ's continual intercession. As long as Christ is in heaven, Christians shall not want a supply of comfort. When we read of the Holy Ghost being "given," we must not think that He was in no sense in the Church before the day of Pentecost. He was ever in the hearts of Old Testament believers. No one ever served God acceptably, from Abel downwards, without the grace of the Holy Ghost. John the Baptist was "filled" with Him. It can only mean that He shall come with more fullness, influence, grace, and manifestation, than He did before. When we read of the "Spirit abiding for ever" with disciples, it means that He will not, like Christ after His resurrection, return to the Father, but will always be with God's people until Christ comes again. The word "Comforter" is the same that is translated "Advocate," and applied to Christ Himself in 1 John 2:1. This has caused much difference of opinion. The word is only used five times in the New Testament, and is four times applied to the Holy Spirit. Some, as Lightfoot, Bishop Hall, and Doddridge, maintain that our translation here is right, and that it is the office of the Spirit to comfort and strengthen Christ's people. Others, as Beza, Lampe, De Dieus, Gomarus, Poole, Pearce, Stier, and Alford, maintain that the word here should have been rendered "Advocate," as in John's Epistle; and that this word aptly expresses the office of the Spirit as pleading our cause, and making intercession for the saints, and helping them in prayer and preaching. (See Romans 8:26; Matthew 10:19-20.) I decidedly prefer this latter view. Those who wish to see an able argument in its favour, should study Canon Lightfoot's volume on New Testament Revision (p. 55). Lampe sensibly remarks that the word "another" points to the phrase meaning "Advocate" rather than "Comforter." That Jesus is our "Advocate" all allow. "Well," our Lord seems to say, "you shall have another 'Advocate' beside myself." Why use the word "another" at all, if "Comforter" is the meaning? It is only fair to say that "the consolation of Israel" was a Jewish name of Messiah (Luke 2:25), and that some think that Christ was one Comforter and the Holy Ghost another. But I do not see much in this. v17.—[Even the Spirit of truth.] The Holy Ghost is most probably so called because He brings truth specially home to men's hearts,— because truth is His great instrument in all His operations,— and because He bears witness to Christ the truth. Elsewhere we read, "It is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth."(1 John 5:6.) [Whom...world cannot receive...knoweth Him.] Here our Lord teaches that it is one great mark of the unbelieving and worldly that they neither receive, nor know, nor see anything of the Holy Ghost. This is strikingly true. Many false professors and unconverted people receive Christ's name and talk of Him, while they know nothing experimentally of the operations of the Holy Ghost. It is written, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them." (1 Corinthians 2:14.) [But ye know...dwelleth...shall be in you.] Our Lord's meaning here must be that the eleven knew something experimentally of the Spirit's work. They might not be fully acquainted with Him; but He was actually in them, making them what they were, and He would remain in them, and carry on the work He had begun to a glorious end. "Whether you know it thoroughly and rightly or not, He is actually in you now, and shall always be in you and never leave you." Let us mark in this and in the preceding verse how our Lord speaks of the Holy Spirit as "a Person." We should never speak of Him as a mere "influence," or dishonour Him by calling Him "it." Let us never forget that "having the Spirit, or not having the Spirit," makes the great distinction between the children of God and the children of the world. Believers have Him. Worldly and wicked people have Him not. (Jude 1:19.) The short passage before us is singularly rich in "precious promises." Twice our Lord Jesus Christ says, "I will." Twice He says to believers, "Ye shall." We learn from this passage, that Christ's second coming is meant to be the special comfort of believers. He says to His disciples, "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." Now what is the "coming" here spoken of? It is only fair to say that this is a disputed point among Christians. Many refer it to our Lord's coming to His disciples after His resurrection. Many refer it to His invisible coming into the hearts of His people by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Many refer it to His coming by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. It may well be doubted, however, whether any one of these three views conveys the full meaning of our Lord's words, "I will come." The true sense of the expression appears to be the second personal coming of Christ at the end of the world. It is a wide, broad, sweeping promise, intended for all believers, in every age, and not for the Apostles alone: "I will not stay always in heaven: I will one day come back to you." It is like the message which the angels brought to the disciples after the ascension:— "This same Jesus shall come in like manner as ye have seen Him go." (Acts 1:11.) It is like the last promise which winds up the Book of Revelation:— "Surely I come quickly." (Revelation 22:20.) Just in the same way the parting consolation held out to believers, the night before the crucifixion, is a personal return:— "I will come." Let us settle it in our minds that all believers are comparatively "orphans," and children in their minority, till the second advent. Our best things are yet to come. Faith has yet to be exchanged for sight, and hope for certainty. Our peace and joy are at present very imperfect. They are as nothing to what we shall have when Christ returns. For that return let us look and long and pray. Let us place it in the forefront of all our doctrinal system, next to the atoning death and the interceding life of our Lord. The highest style of Christians are the men who look for and love the Lord's appearing. (2 Timothy 4:8.) We learn for another thing, that Christ's life secures the life of His believing people. He says, "Because I live ye shall live also." There is a mysterious and indissoluble union between Christ and every true Christian. The man that is once joined to Him by faith, is as closely united as a member of the body is united to the head. So long as Christ, his Head, lives, so long he will live. He cannot die unless Christ can be plucked from heaven, and Christ's life destroyed. But this, since Christ is very God, is totally impossible! "Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over Him." (Romans 6:9.) That which is divine, in the very nature of things, cannot die. Christ's life secures the continuance of spiritual life to His people. They shall not fall away. They shall persevere unto the end. The divine nature of which they are partakers, shall not perish. The incorruptible seed within them shall not be destroyed by the devil and the world. Weak as they are in themselves, they are closely knit to an immortal Head, and not one member of His mystical body shall ever perish. Christ's life secures the resurrection life of His people. Just as He rose again from the grave, because death could not hold Him one moment beyond the appointed time, so shall all His believing members rise again in the day when He calls them from the tomb. The victory that Jesus won when He rolled the stone away, and came forth from the tomb, was a victory not only for Himself, but for His people. If the Head rose, much more shall the members. Truths like these ought to be often pondered by true Christians. The careless world knows little of a believer's privileges. It sees little but the outside of him. It does not understand the secret of his present strength, and of his strong hope of good things to come. And what is that secret? Invisible union with an invisible Savior in heaven! Each child of God is invisibly linked to the throne of the Rock of Ages. When that throne can be shaken, and not till then, we may despair. But Christ lives, and we shall live also. We learn, finally, from this passage, that full and perfect knowledge of divine things will never be attained by believers till the second advent. Our Lord says, "At that day," the day of my coming, "ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in Me, and I in you." The best of saints knows but little so long as he is in the body. The fall of our father Adam has corrupted our understandings, as well as our consciences, hearts, and wills. Even after conversion we see through a glass darkly, and on no point do we see so dimly as on the nature of our own union with Christ, and of the union of Christ and the Father. These are matters in which we must be content to believe humbly, and, like little children, to receive on trust the things which we cannot explain. But it is a blessed and cheering thought that when Christ comes again, the remains of ignorance shall be rolled away. Raised from the dead, freed from the darkness of this world, no longer tempted by the devil and tried by the flesh, believers shall see as they have been seen, and know as they have been known. We shall have light enough one day. What we know not now, we shall know hereafter. Let us rest our souls on this comfortable thought, when we see the mournful divisions which rend the Church of Christ. Let us remember that a large portion of them arise from ignorance. We know in part, and therefore misunderstand one another. A day comes when Lutherans shall no longer wrangle with Zwinglians, nor Calvinist with Arminian, nor Churchman with Dissenter. That day is the day of Christ's second coming. Then and then only will the promise receive its complete fulfillment,— "At that day ye shall know." ================== Notes— v18.—[I will not leave you comfortless.] The word we render "comfortless," means literally "orphans," and is so translated in the marginal reading of the English version. It beautifully describes the helpless, solitary, friendless state, by comparison, in which the disciples of Christ were left, when He died and was withdrawn from their bodily eyes. "In that condition," says Jesus, "I will not leave you. You shall not always be orphans." It adds to the beauty of the expression to remember that He had already called them "little children:" hence there was a special fitness in the word "orphans." [I will come to you.] The verb here is in the present tense: "I do come." About the meaning of the sentence there is much difference of opinion. Even the Fathers, as Burgon says, "explain the words diversely." There is no more unanimity, we must remember, among the Fathers than among modern divines. The "consent of Catholic antiquity," about which many make so much ado, is more imaginary than real. Some think, as Chrysostom, that the "coming" means only the reappearing of Christ after His resurrection from the grave on the third day. Others think, as Hutcheson, that our Lord only means His coming by His Spirit, as a pledge of His presence. Others think, as Augustine and Bede, that our Lord looks far forward to His second coming at the end of the world, and speaks the words to the whole company of believers in every age: "I am coming again. I come quickly." I decidedly prefer this last view. The first and second seem to me to cramp, narrow, and confine our Lord's promise. The last is in harmony with all His teaching. The second advent is the great hope of the Church. In the last chapter of the Bible, the Greek for "I come quickly," is precisely the same verb that is used here. (Revelation 22:20.) In saying this I would not be mistaken. I admit fully that Jesus came to His Church after His ascension, invisibly, does come to His Church continually, is with His Church even to the end of the world. But I do not think this is the meaning of the text. v19.—[Yet a little while...ye see Me.] Again the meaning of our Lord is somewhat obscure. I think He must mean, "Very shortly the wicked unbelieving world will no longer behold and gaze on Me, as I shall be withdrawn from it, and ascend into heaven. But even then ye see Me, and will continue seeing Me with the eyes of faith." I cannot think that the present tense here, "Ye behold Me," can apply to the second advent. It must surely refer to the spiritual vision of Christ which believers would enjoy. The world could not prevent them seeing Him. The Greek word for "ye see" implies a fixed, steady, habitual gaze. Bishop Hall says, "Ye by the eye of faith shall see and acknowledge Me." [Because I live, ye shall live also.] This great deep saying of Christ seems to admit of a very wide and full signification. "Your spiritual life now, and your eternal life hereafter, are both secured by my life. The life of the Head guarantees the life of the members. I live, have life in myself, can never die, can never have my life destroyed by my enemies, and live on to all eternity. Therefore ye shall live also. Your life is secured for you, and can never be destroyed. You have everlasting life now, and shall have everlasting glory hereafter." That word "I live," is a great full saying, and we cannot fathom it all. It does not merely mean "I shall rise from the dead." It is certainly far more than the future tense. It implies that Christ is "the Living One," the source and fountain of life. It is like "In Him was life,"— and "as the Father hath life in Himself, even so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself." (John 1:4; John 5:26.) v20.—[On that day ye shall know, etc.] Here, again, I believe, with Cyril and Augustine, that our Lord specially refers to the day of His own second advent. Then, and not till then, His disciples will have perfect knowledge. Now they see and know in part, and through a glass darkly. Then they shall fully understand the mystical union between the Father and Son, and between the Son and all His believing members. To confine the "day," as Chrysostom does, to the resurrection of Christ from the dead, seems to me to fall short of its full meaning. We learn from these verses that keeping Christ's commandments is the best test of love to Christ. This is a lesson of vast importance, and one that needs continually pressing on the attention of Christians. It is not talking about religion, and talking fluently and well too, but steadily doing Christ's will and walking in Christ's ways, that is the proof of our being true believers. Good feelings and desires are useless if they are not accompanied by action. They may even become mischievous to the soul, induce hardness of conscience, and do positive harm. Passive impressions which do not lead to action, gradually deaden and paralyze the heart. Living and doing are the only real evidence of grace. Where the Holy Spirit is, there will always be a holy life. A jealous watchfulness over tempers, words, and deeds, a constant endeavor to live by the rule of the Sermon on the Mount, this is the best proof that we love Christ. Of course such maxims as these must not be wrested and misunderstood. We are not to suppose for a moment that "keeping Christ's commandments" can save us. Our best works are full of imperfection. When we have done all we can, we are feeble and unprofitable servants. "By grace are ye saved through faith,— not of works." (Ephesians 2:8.) But while we hold one class of truths, we must not forget another. Faith in the blood of Christ must always be attended by loving obedience to the will of Christ. What the Master has joined together, the disciple must not put asunder. Do we profess to love Christ? Then let us show it by our lives. The Apostle who said, "Thou knowest that I love Thee!" received the charge, "Feed my lambs." That meant, "Do something. Be useful: follow my example." (John 21:17.) We learn, secondly, from these verses, that there are special comforts laid up for those who love Christ, and prove it by keeping His words. This, at any rate, seems the general sense of our Lord's language: "My Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." The full meaning of this promise, no doubt, is a deep thing. We have no line to fathom it. It is a thing which no man can understand except he that receives and experiences it. But we need not shrink from believing that eminent holiness brings eminent comfort with it, and that no man has such sensible enjoyment of his religion as the man who, like Enoch and Abraham, walks closely with God. There is more of heaven on earth to be obtained than most Christians are aware of. "The secret of the LORD is with them that fear Him, and He will show them His covenant."— "If any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with Me." (Psalms 25:14; Revelation 3:20.) Promises like these, we may be sure, mean something, and were not written in vain. How is it, people often ask, that so many professing believers have so little happiness in their religion? How is it that so many know little of "joy and peace in believing," and go mourning and heavy-hearted towards heaven? The answer to these questions is a sorrowful one, but it must be given. Few believers attend as strictly as they should to Christ's practical sayings and words. There is far too much loose and careless obedience to Christ's commandments. There is far too much forgetfulness, that while good works cannot justify us they are not to be despised. Let these things sink down into our hearts. If we want to be eminently happy, we must strive to be eminently holy. We learn, lastly, from these verses, that one part of the Holy Ghost's work is to teach, and to bring things to remembrance. It is written, "The Comforter shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance." To confine this promise to the eleven Apostles, as some do, seems a narrow and unsatisfactory mode of interpreting Scripture. It appears to reach far beyond the day of Pentecost, and the gift of writing inspired books of God's Holy Word. It is safer, wiser, and more consistent with the whole tone of our Lord's last discourse, to regard the promise as the common property of all believers, in every age of the world. Our Lord knows the ignorance and forgetfulness of our nature in spiritual things. He graciously declares that when He leaves the world, His people shall have a teacher and remembrancer. Are we sensible of spiritual ignorance? Do we feel that at best we know in part and see in part? Do we desire to understand more clearly the doctrines of the Gospel? Let us pray daily for the help of the "teaching" Spirit. It is His office to illuminate the soul, to open the eyes of the understanding, and to guide us into all truth. He can make dark places light, and rough places smooth. Do we find our memory of spiritual things defective? Do we complain that though we read and hear, we seem to lose as fast as we gain? Let us pray daily for the help of the Holy Ghost. He can bring things to our remembrance. He can make us remember "old things and new." He can keep in our minds the whole system of truth and duty, and make us ready for every good word and work. ================== Notes— v21.—[He that hath...commandments...loveth Me.] Our Lord seems to return to the lesson of the fifteenth verse, and to repeat it because of its importance. There, however, He spoke specially to His disciples; here He lays it down as a general principle applicable to all Christians in all time:— "He that not only possesses and knows my commandments, but also does and practices them, he is the man that really loves Me." Obedience is the true test of real love to Christ, and not knowledge and talk only. Many HAVE, but do not KEEP Christ's will. Burgon observes, "This amounts to a declaration that the sad hearts and weeping eyes of the Apostles would not be accepted by their Lord as any proof of their love. Obedience was the test He chose." [He...loveth Me...loved...Father.] Here follows an encouragement to practical obedience: "He that really loves Me, and proves his love by his life, shall be specially loved by my Father. My Father loves those who love Me." Let us carefully note that there is a special love of God the Father which is peculiarly set on believers, over and above the general love of pity and compassion with which He regards all mankind. In the highest sense God is a "Father" to none but those who love Christ. The modern doctrine of a "Fatherhood" of God which is soul-saving to those who neglect Christ, is a mere delusion of man. [And I...love...manifest...him.] Here follows another encouragement to the man who strives to keep Christ's commandments. Christ will specially love that man, and will give him special manifestations of His grace and favour, invisibly and spiritually. He shall feel and know in his own heart comforts and joys that wicked men and inconsistent professors know nothing of. That the "manifesting" of Himself here spoken of is a purely unseen and spiritual thing, is self-evident. It is one of those things which can only be known by experience, and is only known by holy and consistent Christians. We should carefully observe here, that Christ does more for the comfort of some of His people than He does for others. Those who follow Christ most closely and obediently will always follow Him most comfortably, and feel most of His inward presence. It is one thing, as John says, to know Christ, and another to know that we know Him. (1 John 2:3.) v22.—[Judas saith...not Iscariot.] Jude, the writer of the Epistle, and brother of James, was the Apostle who speaks here. He is called elsewhere Lebbeus and Thaddeus. Remembering that James is called in Galatians "the Lord's brother," there must have been some relationship between him and our Lord. Probably he was a cousin. Whether a recollection of this may have been in His mind when asking the question, admits of conjecture. This is the only word recorded to have been spoken by Jude in the Gospels. We should mark the careful manner in which John reminds us that it was not the false Apostle who asked. Let us note that out of each saying of the three Apostles who spoke to our Lord, interrupting Him in His last discourse, a great truth was elicited for the benefit of the Church. Thomas, Philip, and Jude, ignorant and slow as they were, drew out of our Lord's mouth rich and precious sayings. [How is it...manifest...us...not...world.] This question is the simple inquiry of one guessing after the truth, and not able to see clearly what our Lord's words meant,— whether a visible or an invisible manifestation of Himself:— "What is the precise distinction of privilege between ourselves and the world to which you point?" The Greek for "How is it?" would be literally, "What has happened?" The Greek for "Thou wilt," is literally, "Thou art about." Whitby thinks that Jude, like most Jews of his time, expected Messiah's kingdom to be a visible temporal kingdom over all the earth. He could not therefore understand a manifestation of Christ confined to the disciples. v23.—[Jesus answered...will love him.] This sentence is simply a repetition of the truth contained in the fifteenth and twenty-first verses: "I tell you again emphatically that the man who really loves Me will keep my words, and obey my commandments. And I repeat that such a man will be specially loved and cared for by my heavenly Father." Let us note that in this verse our Lord does not say, "Keep my commandments," but my "word" generally, in the singular number, including all His whole teaching. [And we will come...abide with him.] These words can only admit of one sense,— a spiritual and invisible coming and abiding. The Father and the Son will come spiritually into the heart and soul of a true saint, and will make their continual dwelling with him. This, again, is a purely experimental truth, and one that none can know but he that has felt it. Let us note the condescension of the Father and the Son, and the high privileges of a believer. No matter how poor and lowly a man may be, if he has faith and grace, he has the best of company and friends. Christ and the Father dwell in his heart, and he is never alone, and cannot be poor. He is the temple of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The use of the plural number "we," is very note-worthy in this place. v24.—[He...loveth Me not...my sayings.] Once more the same great principle already taught, is laid down again from the negative side. Where there is no obedience to Christ, there is no love. Nothing can be more plain than our Lord's repeated warnings that practical obedience, keeping His commandments and sayings, doing His will, is the only sure test of love to Him. Without this obedience, profession, talk, knowledge, Churchmanship, yea, even feeling, conviction, weeping and crying, are all worthless things. [And word...not mine...Father...sent Me.] The purpose of this sentence is to remind the disciples of the authority and dignity of our Lord's sayings and commandments. They are not His words only, but His Father's. He that despises them despises the Father, and he that honours them by obedience honours the Father. v25.—[These things...spoken...present with you.] Our Lord seems here to begin to wind up the first part of His discourse to a conclusion. Whether "these things" mean only the things He spoke this evening, or all the things He had taught them during His ministry, admits of doubt. I rather incline to the view that the expression must be taken in the widest sense: "These and many other things I have spoken to you, while abiding and dwelling among you. Your hearts are troubled, perhaps, by the thought that you cannot remember them, and do not understand them. Here there are some grounds of comfort." v26.—[But...Comforter...Holy Ghost...my name.] Here comes one more grand consolation: "When I am gone, the Holy Ghost, the promised Advocate, whom the Father will send on my account, through my intercession, and to glorify Me, shall supply all your need, and provide for all your wants." Let us note how distinctly the Holy Spirit is spoken of here as a Person, and not an influence. Let us note how the Father sends the Spirit, but also sends Him in Christ's name, and with a special reference to Christ's work. [He shall teach you all things.] The first word here rendered "He" is unmistakeably applicative to none but a person, being a masculine pronoun. The "teaching" here promised must mean, firstly, that fuller and more complete instruction which the Holy Ghost evidently gave to believers after our Lord's ascension. No one can read the "Acts" without seeing that the eleven were different men after the day of Pentecost; and saw and knew and understood things of which they were very ignorant before. But, secondly, the "teaching" most probably includes all that teaching and enlightening which the Spirit imparts to all true believers in every age. Light is the first thing we need, and He gives it. It is His special office to "open the eyes of our understandings." The expression "all things" must plainly be limited to all things needful to be known by the soul, and does not include all knowledge of every kind. [And bring all things...remembrance...told you.] This is a special consolation for the weak memories of the troubled disciples. Our Lord promises that the Spirit would bring back to their memories the many lessons, both doctrinal and practical, which they had heard from Him but forgotten. This was a very needful promise. How often we find it recorded that the disciples did not understand our Lord's sayings and doings at the time they heard and saw them, it is almost needless to point out. (John 2:22; John 12:16.) Some apply these words especially to the gift of inspiration by which the New Testament Scriptures were written. I cannot see this. The promise was to the whole eleven, of whom only five were allowed to write! This is strongly dwelt on by Alford. Some apply these words exclusively to the eleven. I cannot see this either. To my eyes they seem a general promise, primarily no doubt applying specially to the eleven, but after them belonging also to all believers in every age. As a matter of experience I believe that the awakening of the memories of true Christians is one of the peculiar works of the Holy Ghost on their souls. Once converted, they understand things and remember things in a way they did not before. Does any one complain of his own ignorance and bad memory? Let him not forget that there is One whose office it is to "teach and to bring to remembrance." Let him pray for the Holy Spirit's help. We ought not to leave the closing portion of this wonderful chapter without noticing one striking feature in it. That feature is the singular frequency with which our Lord uses the expression, "My Father," and "the Father." In the last five verses we find it four times. In the whole chapter it occurs no less than twenty-two times. In this respect the chapter stands alone in the Bible. The reason of this frequent use of the expression, is a deep subject. Perhaps the less we speculate and dogmatize about it the better. Our Lord was one who never spoke a word without a meaning, and we need not doubt there was a meaning here. Yet may we not reverently suppose that He desired to leave on the minds of His disciples a strong impression of his entire unity with the Father? Seldom does our Lord lay claim to such high dignity, and such power of giving and supplying comfort to His Church, as in this discourse. Was there not, then, a fitness in His continually reminding His disciples that in all His giving He was one with the Father, and did nothing without the Father? This, at any rate, seems a fair conjecture. Let it be taken for what it is worth. We should observe, for one thing, in this passage, Christ's last legacy to His people. We find Him saying, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you." Peace is Christ's peculiar gift: not money, not worldly ease, not temporal prosperity. These are at best very questionable possessions. They often do more harm than good to the soul. They act as clogs and weights to our spiritual life. Inward peace of conscience, arising from a sense of pardoned sin and reconciliation with God, is a far greater blessing. This peace is the property of all believers, whether high or low, rich or poor. The peace which Christ gives He calls "my peace." It is specially His own to give, because He bought it by His own blood, purchased it by His own substitution, and is appointed by the Father to dispense it to a perishing world. Just as Joseph was sealed and commissioned to give corn to the starving Egyptians, so is Christ specially commissioned, in the counsels of the Eternal Trinity, to give peace to mankind. The peace that Christ gives is not given as the world gives. What He gives the world cannot give at all, and what He gives is given neither unwillingly, nor sparingly, nor for a little time. Christ is far more willing to give than the world is to receive. What He gives He gives to all eternity, and never takes away. He is ready to give abundantly above all that we can ask or think. "Open thy mouth wide," He says, "and I will fill it." (Psalms 81:10.) Who can wonder that a legacy like this should be backed by the renewed emphatic charge, "Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid"? There is nothing lacking on Christ's part for our comfort, if we will only come to Him, believe, and receive. The chief of sinners has no cause to be afraid. If we will only look to the one true Savior, there is medicine for every trouble of heart. Half our doubts and fears arise from dim perceptions of the real nature of Christ's Gospel. We should observe, for another thing, in this passage, Christ's perfect holiness. We find Him saying, "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me." The meaning of these remarkable words admits of only one interpretation. Our Lord would have his disciples know that Satan, "the prince of this world," was about to make his last and most violent attack on Him. He was mustering all his strength for one more tremendous onset. He was coming up with his utmost malice to try the second Adam in the garden of Gethsemane, and on the cross of Calvary. But our blessed Master declares, "He hath nothing in Me."— "There is nothing he can lay hold on. There is no weak and defective point in Me. I have kept my Father's commandment, and finished the work He gave me to do. Satan, therefore, cannot overthrow Me. He can lay nothing to my charge. He cannot condemn Me. I shall come forth from the trial more than conqueror." Let us mark the difference between Christ and all others who have been born of woman. He is the only one in whom Satan has found "nothing." He came to Adam and Eve, and found weakness. He came to Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and all the saints, and found imperfection. He came to Christ, and found "nothing" at all. He was a Lamb "without blemish and without spot," a suitable Sacrifice for a world of sinners, a suitable Head for a redeemed race. Let us thank God that we have such a perfect, sinless Savior; that His righteousness is a perfect righteousness, and His life a blameless life. In ourselves and our doings we shall find everything imperfect; and if we had no other hope than our own goodness, we might well despair. But in Christ we have a perfect, sinless, Representative and Substitute. Well may we say, with the triumphant Apostle, "Who shall lay anything to our charge?" (Romans 8:33.) Christ has died for us, and suffered in our stead. In Him Satan can find nothing. We are hidden in Him. The Father sees us in Him, unworthy as we are, and for His sake is well pleased. ================== Notes— v27.—[Peace I leave with you.] In this verse our Lord gives His disciples one more consolation. He bequeaths them as a legacy, "peace;" not riches or worldly honour, but peace,— peace of heart, conscience, and inward man,— peace from a sense of pardoned sin, a living Saviour, and a home in heaven. Matthew Henry remarks here, "When Christ left the world, He made His will. His soul He bequeathed to His Father, and His body to Joseph. His clothes fell to the soldiers. His mother He left to the care of John. But what should He leave to His poor disciples, who had left all for Him? Silver and gold He had none; but He left them what was far better, His peace." [My peace give I unto you.] The expression "my peace," seems to indicate something peculiar in the gift here promised. Does it not mean "a sense of that peace with God which I am purchasing with my blood,— that inward calm and rest of soul which faith in Me procures for believers,— that peace which it is my special prerogative to give to my people"? [Not as...world giveth...I...you.] The first and fullest meaning of this sentence seems to lie in the kind of things which Christ gives: "I give you possessions which the world cannot give, because it has not got them to give." The world can give temporary carnal satisfaction and excitement, and can gratify the passions and affections and pride of the natural man. But the world cannot give inward peace and rest of conscience. Some, however, think that the point of the sentence lies in the manner of the world's giving,— temporarily, defectively, imperfectly, grudgingly, and the like. But, however true this may be, I prefer the view that the chief point is in the nature of the world's gifts compared to Christ's. [Let not your heart be troubled.] This is a repetition of the words which began the long list of consolations in this chapter: "Once more I say to you, in view of the many grounds of comfort which I have just named, do not give way to trouble of heart." [Neither let it be afraid.] These words are added to the opening charge, not to be "troubled." They point to a frame of mind which our Lord saw creeping over the disciples: "Let not your heart give way to cowardice. Let it not be fearful." It is the only place in the New Testament where this word is used. We need not doubt that the whole of this consoling verse is meant to be the property of all believers in every age. v28.—[Ye have heard...said...go away.] This sentence must refer to John 13:33-36, and John 14:2-3, John 14:12. The disciples seem to have understood clearly that our Lord was leaving them, and that seems to have been one chief reason of their trouble and distress. [And come—to you.] I must retain the opinion that this coming refers to the second advent, and not to the resurrection of Christ. "My leaving the world until my second advent, you have heard me plainly teach and declare." [If ye loved...rejoice...go...Father.] These words mean,— "if you really loved Me with an intelligent love, and thoroughly understood my person, nature, and work, you would rejoice to hear of my leaving the world and going to the Father, because you would see in it the finishing and completion of the work which the Father sent Me to do." Our Lord cannot of course mean that the disciples did not "love" Him at all, but that they did not rightly and intelligently love Him; otherwise they would have rejoiced at His completion of His work. [For my father is greater than I.] This famous sentence has always been an occasion of controversy and dispute. It presents two difficulties. (a) What did our Lord mean by saying, "My Father is greater than I"? I answer that the words of the Athanasian Creed contain the best reply. Christ is no doubt "equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood." This we may freely and fully admit, and yet not give up a hair's breadth to Arians and Socinians, who always throw this text in our teeth. The enemies of the doctrine of Christ's divinity forget that Trinitarians maintain the humanity of Christ as strongly as His divinity; and never shrink from admitting that while Christ as God is equal to the Father, as man He is inferior to the Father. And it is in this sense that He here says truly, "My Father is greater than I." It was specially spoken of the time of His incarnation and humiliation. When the Word was "made flesh" He took on Him "the form of a servant." This was temporary inferiority. (Philippians 2:7.) (b) But what did our Lord mean by saying that the disciples ought to rejoice at His going to the Father, BECAUSE "the Father is greater than I"? This is a hard knot to untie, and has received different solutions. My own impression is that the meaning must be something of this kind:— "Ye ought to rejoice at my going to the Father, because in so going I shall resume that glory which I had with Him before the world was, and which I laid aside on becoming incarnate. Here on earth, during the thirty-three years of my incarnation, I have been in the form of a servant, and dwelling in a body as one inferior to my Father. In leaving this world I go to take up again the equal glory and honour which I had with the Father before my incarnation; and to lay aside the position of inferiority in which I have tabernacled here below. I go to be once more Almighty with the Almighty, and to share once more my Father's throne, as a Person in that Trinity in which 'none is afore or after other, none is greater or less than another.' I go to receive the kingdom and honour which in eternal counsels the Father has prepared for the Son; and on this account, if you really knew and understood all, you would rejoice at my going. If I had not voluntarily placed myself in a position of inferiority to the Father by becoming man for man's sake, you would have no hope for your souls. But now the work is finished. I return to the Father, and leave my position of inferiority and humiliation, and you ought to rejoice and be glad." v29.—[And now...told...before...to pass, etc.] This seems to refer to our Lord's going away. "I have told you plainly that I am leaving you and about to die on the cross, in order that when I do die and go, you may continue believing, and not have your faith shaken." v30.—[Hereafter...not talk much with you.] This must mean that our Lord would not talk much more before His crucifixion. The time was short, and the betrayal and suffering drew nigh. It does not refer to the time after our Lord's resurrection, and the forty days before His ascension. [For...prince...cometh...nothing in me.] This means that Satan was drawing nigh for his last final assault on our Lord; and that he would find nothing to lay hold on, and no weak point. It is very striking to observe that our Lord does not say "Judas, the Romans, the Pharisees are coming." It is only the devil. He, as at the fall, is at the bottom of all. Others are only his tools. We should note how the devil is called "the prince of this world." He rules and reigns in the hearts of the vast majority of mankind. The whole world "lieth in the wicked one." Of the extent and intensity of Satan's influence on earth, even now we have probably very little idea. When it says that he "cometh," we must not suppose that it means "cometh for the first time." All through our Lord's earthly ministry He was tempted and assailed and opposed by Satan. It must mean, "He is coming with special violence and bitter wrath to make his last attack on Me both in Gethsemane and on Calvary." There are evidently degrees at different seasons in the intensity and virulence of Satan's attacks. When it says "hath nothing in Me," it must mean that our Lord's heart and life were equally without spot of sin. He knew and felt that He, the second Adam, had nothing about Him that Satan could lay hold on. No one but Christ our Head could say that. The holiest saint could never say it! Sanderson observes, "a cunning searcher had pried narrowly into every corner of His life; and if there had been anything amiss, would have been sure to have spied it, and proclaimed it. But he could find nothing." v31.—[But that the world...so I do.] This is a somewhat dark and obscure passage. The meaning is probably something of this kind: "I do all I am doing now, and go to the cross voluntarily, though innocent, that the world may have full proof that I love the Father who sent Me to die, and am willing to go through everything which He has commanded Me to go through. Innocent as I am, and without one spot of sin that Satan can lay to my charge, I willingly go forward to the cross, to show how I love the Father's will, and am determined to do it by dying for sinners." [Arise, let us go hence.] These words seem to indicate a change of position, and probably mean that our Lord at this point rose from the table where He had been speaking, and walked out towards the garden of Gethsemane. The rest of His discourse He seems to have delivered in the act of walking, without a single interruption from any of the disciples, until the end of the sixteenth chapter; and then, at some point unknown to us, He probably paused and offered up the prayer of the seventeenth chapter. This is the view of Cyril and Augustine, and most commentators. Yet Jansenius, Maldonatus, Alford, and some others, think that our Lord never left the house, and only rose from [the] table at this point, and went on with His discourse standing! Lightfoot, almost alone, maintains the strange and improbable notion that the place where this discourse was delivered was Bethany, that the interval of a week comes into the narrative here, that at the end of this week the paschal supper and the institution of the Lord's Supper took place, and then came the discourse of the fifteenth chapter. No commentator perhaps can leave this chapter without deeply feeling how little he knows and understands of the full meaning of much of its contents. May we not however fairly reflect that one great cause of the chapter's difficulty is man's entire inability to grasp the great mystery of the union of the Father, the Son and the Spirit in the Trinity? We are continually handling matters which we cannot fully comprehend, and cannot therefore fully explain, and must be content humbly to believe. These verses, we must carefully remember, contain a parable. In interpreting it we must not forget the great rule which applies to all Christ's parables. The general lesson of each parable is the main thing to be noticed. The minor details must not be tortured and pressed to an excess, in order to extract a meaning from them. The mistakes into which Christians have fallen by neglecting this rule, are neither few nor small. We are meant to learn first, from these verses, that the union between Christ and believers is very close. He is "the Vine," and they are "the branches." The union between the branch of a vine and the main stem, is the closest that can be conceived. It is the whole secret of the branch's life, strength, vigor, beauty, and fertility. Separate from the parent stem, it has no life of its own. The sap and juice that flow from the stem are the origin and maintaining power of all its leaves, buds, blossoms, and fruit. Cut off from the stem, it must soon wither and die. The union between Christ and believers is just as close, and just as real. In themselves believers have no life, or strength, or spiritual power. All that they have of vital religion comes from Christ. They are what they are, and feel what they feel, and do what they do, because they draw out of Jesus a continual supply of grace, help, and ability. Joined to the Lord by faith, and united in mysterious union with Him by the Spirit, they stand, and walk, and continue, and run the Christian race. But every jot of good about them is drawn from their spiritual Head, Jesus Christ. The thought before us is both comfortable and instructive. Believers have no cause to despair of their own salvation, and to think they will never reach heaven. Let them consider that they are not left to themselves and their own strength. Their root is Christ, and all that there is in the root is for the benefit of the branches. Because He lives, they shall live also. Worldly people have no cause to wonder at the continuance and perseverance of believers. Weak as they are in themselves, their Root is in heaven, and never dies. "When I am weak," said Paul, "then am I strong." (2 Corinthians 12:10.) We are meant to learn, secondly, from these verses, that there are false Christians as well as true ones. There are "branches in the vine" which appear to be joined to the parent stem, and yet bear no fruit. There are men and women who appear to be members of Christ, and yet will prove finally to have had no vital union with Him. There are myriads of professing Christians in every Church whose union with Christ is only outward and formal. Some of them are joined to Christ by baptism and Church-membership. Some of them go even further than this, and are regular communicants and loud talkers about religion. But they all lack the one thing needful. Notwithstanding services, and sermons, and sacrament, they have no grace in their hearts, no faith, no inward work of the Holy Spirit. They are not one with Christ, and Christ in them. Their union with Him is only nominal, and not real. They have "a name to live," but in the sight of God they are dead. Christians of this stamp are aptly represented by branches in a vine which bear no fruit. Useless and unsightly, such branches are only fit to be cut off and burned. They draw nothing out of the parent stem, and make no return for the place they occupy. Just so will it be at the last day with false professors and nominal Christians. Their end, except they repent, will be destruction. They will be separated from the company of true believers, and cast out, as withered, useless branches, into everlasting fire. They will find at last, whatever they thought in this world, that there is a worm that never dies, and a fire that is not quenched. We are meant to learn, thirdly, from these verses, that the fruits of the Spirit are the only satisfactory evidence of a man being a true Christian. The disciple that "abides in Christ," like a branch abiding in the vine, will always bear fruit. He that would know what the word "fruit" means, need not wait long for an answer. Repentance toward God, faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, holiness of life and conduct, these are what the New Testament calls "fruit." These are the distinguishing marks of the man who is a living branch of the true Vine. Where these things are wanting, it is vain to talk of possessing dormant grace and spiritual life. Where there is no fruit there is no life. He that lacketh these things is "dead while he liveth." True grace, we must not forget, is never idle. It never slumbers and never sleeps. It is a vain notion to suppose that we are living members of Christ, if the example of Christ is not to be seen in our characters and lives. "Fruit" is the only satisfactory evidence of saving union between Christ and our souls. Where there is no fruit of the Spirit to be seen, there is no vital religion in the heart. The Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus will always make Himself known in the daily conduct of those in whom He dwells. The Master Himself declares, "Every tree is known by his own fruit." (Luke 6:44.) We are meant, lastly, to learn from these verses, that God will often increase the holiness of true Christians by His providential dealings with them. "Every branch," it is written, "that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bear more fruit." The meaning of this language is clear and plain. Just as the vine-dresser prunes and cuts back the branches of a fruitful vine, in order to make them more fruitful, so does God purify and sanctify believers by the circumstances of life in which He places them. Trial, to speak plainly, is the instrument by which our Father in heaven makes Christians more holy. By trial He calls out their passive graces, and proves whether they can suffer His will as well as do it. By trial He weans them from the world, draws them to Christ, drives them to the Bible and prayer, shows them their own hearts, and makes them humble. This is the process by which He "purges" them, and makes them more fruitful. The lives of the saints in every age, are the best and truest comment on the text. Never, hardly, do we find an eminent saint, either in the Old Testament or the New, who was not purified by suffering, and, like His Master, a "man of sorrows." Let us learn to be patient in the days of darkness, if we know anything of vital union with Christ. Let us remember the doctrine of the passage before us, and not murmur and complain because of trials. Our trials are not meant to do us harm, but good. God chastens us "for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness." (Hebrews 12:10.) Fruit is the thing that our Master desires to see in us, and He will not spare the pruning knife if He sees we need it. In the last day we shall see that all was well done. ================== Notes— v1.—[I am... Vine...Father...husbandman.] In this and the following chapter, our Lord proceeds to give instruction rather than consolation. Having cheered and comforted the timid disciples in the fourteenth chapter, He now presses on their attention certain great truths which He would have them specially remember when He was gone. And He begins by urging the absolute necessity of close union and communion with Himself, by means of the illustration of a vine and its branches. We must always remember that the passage before us is a parable, and as a parable must be interpreted. We must be careful not to press each sentence in it too far; and, as in all parables, we must look at the great lesson which it contains, rather than at each clause.— The old saying is most true, that "no parable stands on four legs;" and in all parables there are parts which are only the drapery of the figure, and not the figure itself. Neglect of this caution does much harm to the souls of Christians, and is the cause of much crude and unsound doctrine.— In the passage before us we must remember that our Lord Jesus Christ is not literally a vine, nor are believers literal branches, nor is the Father literally a husbandman. We are dealing with figures and pictures, mercifully used in order to meet our weak capacities; and we must take care we do not draw doctrinal conclusions from them, which contradict other plain passages of Scripture. Even Maldonatus, the Romish commentator, here remarks: "All the several parts of a parable are not always meant to be fitted to the thing signified by the parable. Many things in parables are said to fill up or adorn the narrative." Toletus says just the same. Burgon remarks, "Let us, instead of perplexing ourselves with minor details, bear in mind that in interpreting each of our Lord's parables, the great purpose for which it was delivered is ever to be borne in mind, if we would understand it rightly." Our Lord's reason for choosing the illustration of "a vine" has caused much speculation. Some think that He drew the figure from a vine trained over the walls and windows of the upper chamber which He and His disciples were leaving.— Some think that He drew it from the famous golden vine, which ornamented the principal gate of the temple.— Some think that He drew it from the vines which He saw by the way side as He walked to the garden of Gethsemane.— Some refer it to the "fruit of the vine" at the Lord's Supper.— After all, these are only guesses and conjectures. It was night when our Lord spoke, and of course nothing could be seen very distinctly. Nor is it necessary to suppose that our Lord drew His illustration from anything but His own mind. The expression "the true" applied to the vine is an argument much used by those who think our Lord founded His parable on a vine under His eyes. But is it not more likely that our Lord had in view those places in the Old Testament where the Jewish Church is compared to a vine? (See Psalms 80:8; Jeremiah 2:21; Ezekiel 15:2; Hosea 10:1.) It would then mean: "I, and not the decaying Jewish Church, am the true source of spiritual life." This to Jewish minds would be a very useful lesson. For the use of the word "true" in a precisely similar way, see John 6:32 : "the true bread." It means the true, original, archetypal vine, of which all other vines are only types and shadows. Lightfoot says, "Hitherto Israel had been the vine, into which every one that would worship the true God must be grafted. But from henceforward they were to be planted into the profession of Christ." The meaning of the verse seems to be this:— "The relation between you and Me is that of a vine and its branches. I am the true source of all your life and spiritual vigour; and you are as entirely dependent on Me, as the branches of the vine are on the parent stem: and there is as close union between you and Me, as between a vine and its branches. My Father takes the same tender interest in you that the vine-dresser does in the branch of the vine; and is continually watching over your health, fruitfulness, and fertility. Think not for a moment that my Father is not as deeply interested in your spiritual prosperity as I am myself." The interpretation adopted by Alford and many others, that the vine means "the visible Church," of which Christ is the inclusive Head, appears to me thoroughly unsatisfactory. Our Lord is speaking specially to eleven believers, and treating of their relation to Himself. To apply all the language of this parable to so mixed and defective a body as the "visible Church," seems to me to lower and degrade the whole passage. v2.—[Every branch...not fruit...taketh away.] Perhaps no sentence in the parable is more perverted, and wrested, and misapplied than this. Many assert that it teaches that a man may be a real true branch of the vine, a member of Christ, and yet lose all His grace, and be finally cast away. In short, the sentence is the favourite weapon of all Arminians, of all who maintain an inseparable connection between grace and baptism, and of all who deny the perseverance in faith of believers. I will not urge in reply that this view of the sentence cannot be reconciled with other plainer texts of Scripture, which are not parts of a parable like this; and that we should always shrink from interpreting Scripture so as to make one part contradict another. I prefer saying that the sentence before us will not bear the sense commonly put on it. The plain truth is that this text is precisely that part of the parable which will not admit of a literal interpretation. As a matter of fact it is not true that the Father "taketh away" all unfruitful branches. When does He do it? When does He remove from the Church all graceless Christians? On the contrary, for 1800 years He has allowed them to exist in the Church, and has not taken them away. Nor will He take them away till the day of judgment. If the expression "taketh away" cannot be interpreted literally, we must beware of interpreting literally the expression, "branch in Me." As the one phrase is figurative, so also is the other. In short it cannot be shown that a "branch in Me" must mean a believer in Me. It means nothing more than "a professing member of my Church, a man joined to the company of my people, but not joined to Me." The true meaning of the verse I believe to be this: "My Father deals with my mystical body just as the vine-dresser deals with the vine and its branches. He will no more allow any of my members to be fruitless and graceless, than a vine-dresser will allow barren branches to grow on the vine. My Father will take care that all who are in Me give proof of their union by their fruitful lives and conversation. He will not tolerate for a moment such an inconsistent being as an unfruitful believer, if such a being could be found. In a word, fruitfulness is the great test of being one of my disciples; and he that is not fruitful is not a branch of the true vine." Calvin remarks, "Many are supposed to be in the vine, according to man's opinion, who actually have no root in the vine." Hengstenberg thinks that the Jewish Church is primarily meant here, as a fruitless branch compared to the Christian Church. [And every branch...purgeth...fruit.] The meaning of this part of the verse is happily more easy than the other. "Just as a vinedresser prunes and cuts all healthy branches of a vine, in order to prevent it running to wood and to make it bear more fruit, so does my Father deal with all my believing members. He prunes and purifies them by affliction and trouble, in order to make them more fruitful in holiness." Let us remember that this sentence throws light on many of the afflictions and trials of God's people. They are all part of that mysterious process by which God the Father purifies and sanctifies Christ's people. They are the "pruning" of the vine-branches, for good and not for harm, to increase their fruitfulness. All the most eminent saints in every age have been men of sorrows, and often pruned. Clement of Alexandria, and many writers in all ages, remark, on this verse, that the vine-branch, which is not sharply pruned, is peculiarly liable to run to wood and bear no fruit. After all, in leaving this difficult verse, we must not forget that a man may appear to us to be a "branch in Christ," and a true believer, and yet not be one in the sight of God. The end of that man will be death. He will be "taken away" at last to punishment. "Every one that seems and appears to be a branch of the true vine, and yet is not really one, will be lost."— Two principles in any case we must never let go. One principle is that no one can be a branch in Christ, and a living member of His body, who does not bear fruit. Vital union with Christ not evidenced by life is an impossibility, and a blasphemous idea.— The other principle is that no living branch of the true vine, no believer in Christ, will ever finally perish. They that perish may have looked like believers, but they were not believers in reality. v3.—[Now ye are clean...word...unto you.] Having described the relation between Himself and His people generally, our Lord now turns to His disciples, and shows them their present position and immediate duty. "Now you are comparatively cleansed and purified by the doctrine which I have taught, and you have received and believed. But do not be content with past attainments. Attend to the counsel which I am about to give you." When our Lord calls His disciples "clean" or "pure" in this place, we cannot doubt that He uses the phrase in a comparative sense. Compared to the unbelieving Scribes and Pharisees, compared indeed with themselves before their Lord called and taught them, the disciples were a cleansed and purified people,— imperfectly and very partially cleansed no doubt, but cleansed. We should carefully note how our Lord speaks of His "Word" as the great instrument of cleansing His disciples. It is the same mighty principle that is found in Ephesians 5:26 and 1 Peter 1:22. God's Word is God's grand means of converting and sanctifying souls. Henry remarks here, "Those who are justified by the blood, and sanctified by the Spirit of Christ, are in Christ's account clean already, notwithstanding many spots and manifold imperfections." v4.—[Abide in Me...I in you.] Now comes the direct instruction which our Lord desired the disciples to receive:— "Abide in Me. Cling to Me. Stick fast to Me. Live the life of close and intimate communion with Me. Get nearer and nearer to Me. Roll every burden on Me. Cast your whole weight on Me. Never let go your hold on Me for a moment. Be as it were rooted and planted in Me. Do this, and I will never fail you. I will ever abide in you." This word "abide," or "remain," is used no less than ten times in the first eleven verses of this chapter. It implies a constant remaining or continuing in one spot or place. A true Christian must be always ''in Christ," as a man dwelling always inside the walls of a fortified city. [As the branch...abide in Me.] Here our Lord returns once more to the figure of the parable:— "Just as the branch of the vine cannot bear fruit separately and of itself, and must keep up living union with the parent stem, and out of it draw life and strength, just so you cannot bear Christian fruit and walk in Christian ways, and live a Christian life, except you keep up constant union and communion with Me." v5.—[I am...Vine...ye...branches.] Once more our Lord repeats the leading idea of the parable, in order to impress the lesson He is teaching on the disciples' minds:— "I repeat the assertion I made. The relation between you and Me must be as close and intimate as that between a vine and its branches." [He that abideth...much fruit.] Here our Lord gives encouragement to the disciples to keep up the habit of closest union with Him. This is the secret of bearing "much fruit," and being an eminently holy and useful Christian. The experience of every age of the Church proves the truth of this saying. The greatest saints have always lived nearest to Christ. Do we not see here that there is a difference in the degrees of fruitfulness to which Christians attain? Is there not a tacit distinction here between "fruit" and "much fruit"? [For without Me...do nothing.] The marginal reading gives our Lord's meaning more completely: "Severed from Me, separate from Me, you have no strength, and can do nothing. You are as lifeless as a branch cut off from the parent stem." We must always take care that we do not misapply and misinterpret this text. Nothing is more common than to hear some ignorant Christians quoting it partially, as an excuse for indolence, and neglect of means of grace. "You know we can do nothing," is the cry of such people.— This is dragging out of the text a lesson it was never meant to teach. He that spoke these words to His eleven chosen apostles, is the same Lord who said to all men who would be saved,— "Strive to enter in;"— "Labour for the meat which endureth to everlasting life;"— "Repent and believe." v6.—[If a man abide not...burned.] The consequence of not abiding in Christ, of refusing to live the life of faith in Christ, are here described under a terrible figure. The end of such false professors will be like the end of fruitless and dead branches of a vine. Sooner or later they are cast out of the vineyard as withered, useless things, and gathered as firewood to be burned. Such will be the last end of professing Christians who turn their backs on Jesus, and bear no fruit to God's glory. They will finally come to the fire that is never quenched in hell. These are awful words. They seem, however, to apply specially to backsliders and apostates, like Judas Iscariot. There must be about a man some appearance of professed faith in Christ, before he can come to the state described here. Doubtless there are those who seem to depart from grace, and to go back from union with Christ; but we need not doubt in such cases that the grace was not real, but seeming, and the union was not true, but fictitious. Once more we must remember that we are reading a parable. That there is a hell, and that God can punish, seems plainly taught in this verse. It is noteworthy that the Greek would be more literally rendered, "He has been cast out," and "Has been withered," in the past tense. Alford thinks that this is because the whole is spoken as if the great day of judgment were come.— Also the word "men" is supplied in our translation. Literally it would be, "They gather," "They cast," without referring to any person in particular. This is a Hebraism which will be found in Matthew 5:15; Luke 16:9; Acts 7:6. After all, the final, miserable ruin and punishment of false professors, is the great lesson which the verse teaches. Abiding in Christ leads to fruitfulness in this life, and everlasting happiness in the life to come. Departure from Christ leads to the everlasting fire of hell. There is a wide difference between believers and believers. In some things they are all alike. All feel their sins; all trust in Christ; all repent and strive to be holy. All have grace, and faith, and new hearts. But they differ widely in the degree of their attainments. Some are far happier and holier Christians than others, and have far more influence on the world. Now what are the inducements which the Lord Jesus holds out to His people, to make them aim at eminent holiness? This is a question which ought to be deeply interesting to every pious mind. Who would not like to be a singularly useful and happy servant of Christ? The passage before us throws light on the subject in three ways. In the first place, our Lord declares, "If ye abide in Me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." This is a distinct promise of power and success in prayer. And what does it turn upon? We must "abide in Christ," and Christ's "words must abide in us." To abide in Christ means to keep up a habit of constant close communion with Him,— to be always leaning on Him, resting on Him, pouring out our hearts to Him, and using Him as our Fountain of life and strength, as our chief Companion and best Friend.— To have His words abiding in us, is to keep His sayings and precepts continually before our memories and minds, and to make them the guide of our actions and the rule of our daily conduct and behavior. Christians of this stamp, we are told, shall not pray in vain. Whatever they ask they shall obtain, so long as they ask things according to God's mind. No work shall be found too hard, and no difficulty insurmountable. Asking they shall receive, and seeking they shall find. Such men were Martin Luther, the German Reformer, and our own martyr, Bishop Latimer. Such a man was John Knox, of whom Queen Mary said, that she feared his prayers more than an army of twenty thousand men. It is written in a certain place, "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16.) Now, why is there so little power of prayer like this in our own time? Simply because there is so little close communion with Christ, and so little strict conformity to His will. Men do not "abide in Christ," and therefore pray in vain. Christ's words do not abide in them, as their standard of practice, and therefore their prayers seem not to be heard. They ask and receive not, because they ask amiss. Let this lesson sink down into our hearts. He that would have answers to his prayers, must carefully remember Christ's directions. We must keep up intimate friendship with the great Advocate in heaven, if our petitions are to prosper. In the second place, our Lord declares, "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples." The meaning of this promise seems to be, that fruitfulness in Christian practice will not only bring glory to God, but will supply the best evidence to our own hearts that we are real disciples of Christ. Assurance of our own interest in Christ, and our consequent eternal safety, is one of the highest privileges in religion. To be always doubting and fearing is miserable work. Nothing is worse than suspense in any matter of importance, and above all in the matter of our souls. He that would know one of the best receipts for obtaining assurance, should diligently study Christ's words now before us. Let him strive to bear much fruit in his life, his habits, his temper, his words, and his works. So doing he shall feel the "witness of the Spirit" in his heart, and give abundant proof that he is a living branch of the true Vine. He shall find inward evidence in his own soul that he is a child of God, and shall supply the world with outward evidence that cannot be disputed. He shall leave no room for doubt that he is a disciple. Would we know why so many professing Christians have little comfort in their religion, and go fearing and doubting along the road to heaven? The question receives a solution in the saying of our Lord we are now considering. Men are content with a little Christianity, and a little fruit of the Spirit, and do not labor to be holy in all manner of conversation. They must not wonder if they enjoy little peace, feel little hope, and leave behind them little evidence. The fault lies with themselves. God has linked together holiness and happiness; and what God has joined together we must not think to put asunder. In the third place, our Lord declares, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love." The meaning of this promise is near akin to that of the preceding one. The man who makes conscience of diligently observing Christ's precepts, is the man who shall continually enjoy a sense of Christ's love in his soul. Of course we must not misunderstand our Lord's words when He speaks of "keeping His commandments." There is a sense in which no one can keep them. Our best works are imperfect and defective, and when we have done our best we may well cry, "God be merciful to me a sinner." Yet we must not run into the other extreme, and give way to the lazy idea that we can do nothing at all. By the grace of God we may make Christ's laws our rule of life, and show daily that we desire to please Him. So doing, our gracious Master will give us a constant sense of His favor, and make us feel His face smiling on us, like the sun shining on a fine day. "The secret of the LORD is with them that fear Him, and He will show them His covenant." (Psalms 25:14.) Lessons like these may be legal to some, and bring down much blame on those who advocate them. Such is the narrow-mindedness of human nature, that few can look on more than one side of truth! Let the servant of Christ call no man his master. Let him hold on his way, and never be ashamed of diligence, fruitfulness, and jealous watchfulness, in his obedience to Christ's commands. These things are perfectly consistent with salvation by grace and justification by faith, whatever any one may say to the contrary. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. The Christian who is careful over his words and tempers and works, will generally be the most happy Christian. "Joy and peace in believing" will never accompany an inconsistent life. It is not for nothing that our Lord concludes the passage: "These things have I spoken unto you, that your joy might be full." ================== Notes— v7.—[If ye abide in Me...done unto you.] In this verse our Lord continues to encourage the disciples to "abide in Him," by holding up to them a gracious promise. Abiding in Christ, their prayers will obtain signal and special replies. They shall ask what they will, and it shall be done for them. The doctrine here laid down and implied is a very remarkable one. There are some Christians whose prayers are more powerful and effectual than those of others. The nearer a man lives to Christ, and the closer his communion with Him, the more effectual will his prayers be. The truth of the doctrine is so self-evident and reasonable, that no one on reflection can deny it. He that lives nearest to Christ will always be the man that feels most, and prays most earnestly, and fervently, and heartily. Common sense shows that such prayers are most likely to get answers. Many believers get little from God, because they ask little, or ask amiss. The holiest saints are the most earnest in prayer, and they consequently get the most. We should note that our Lord says not only "if ye abide in Me," but adds, "and my words abide in you." This means, "If my doctrine and teaching abide fresh in your memories, and is continually influencing your lives." Our Lord guards us against supposing that a mere indolent abiding in Him, with a dreamy, mystical kind of religion, is what He means. His words must be burning like fire within us, and constantly actuating our characters and lives. When He says "ye shall ask what ye will," we must of course understand that His promise only includes things according to God's mind and for God's glory. Paul asked for the "thorn in the flesh" to depart; but his prayer was not granted. We need not, however, hesitate to believe that there is a special and peculiar power in the prayers of eminent saints. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16.) The prayers of Luther, Latimer, Knox, Welsh, Baxter, Herbert, Romaine, and other great saints, are specially noted by their contemporaries as possessing power. The Greek word rendered "it shall be done," means literally, "it shall come to pass." v8.—[Herein..Father glorified...disciples.] In this verse our Lord supplies two more reasons why His disciples should abide in Him, and strive to bring forth much fruit of holiness. One reason is, that it will glorify His Father in heaven. Their good works will recommend their religion, and make the world honour the God who has such servants. The other reason is, that it will give evidence of their being real, true, genuine disciples. Their lives will prove plainly that they are followers of Christ. The expression "so shall ye be," is literally "and ye shall be." It must mean, ''Ye shall be known and recognized by all men as my disciples, and shall feel in your own hearts the witness of the Spirit that ye are such." Poole remarks, "In Scripture, being often signifieth appearing," as in John 8:31, and Romans 3:4. v9.—[As...Father...loved...I...you.] This remarkable statement seems intended to show the depth and magnitude of our Lord's love to His people. We can form no adequate idea of the love of the Father towards the Son. The feeling of one eternal Person in the Trinity to another Person is a high thing into which we cannot enter. Yet even such is the love of Christ towards those who believe in Him,— a vast, wide, deep, unmeasurable love that passeth knowledge, and can never be fully comprehended by man. [Continue ye in my love.] This must mean,— "Continue resting your souls on this love of mine towards you, and live under a constant sense of it. Remain clinging to it, as within a fortress and place of refuge." Christ's free, and continued, and mighty love should be the home and abiding place of a believer's soul. The word rendered "continue" is the same that is rendered "abide" in John 15:4, and ought to have been the same here. v10.—[If...keep commandments...love.] Once more our Lord returns to the subject of practical obedience to His laws, as the grand secret of a happy and comfortable religion. "If you keep my commandments, you will live in the enjoyment of a continued sense of my love to your souls, and feel inwardly that you are my saved people." The doctrine here laid down is one of the great principles of experimental Christianity. Holy living and assurance of an interest in Christ are closely connected. Our own happiness and enjoyment of religion are inseparably bound up with our daily practical living. He that expects assurance, while he neglects Christ's commandments, and gives way to daily inconsistencies of temper and conduct, is expecting what he will never get. "Hereby we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments." (1 John 2:3.) Let those who will call such doctrine "legal." As a matter of fact, it will always be found true. [Even as I...his love.] The statement of this sentence is one of those which man can never fully grasp. That Christ kept the Father's commandments perfectly, while we can only keep His imperfectly, and that He abides in the Father's love continually and without defect, while our abiding in His love is at least fitful and uncertain, are truths which no intelligent Christian can dispute. In this, as in everything else, our Lord's example and pattern are propounded to us as things which we must strive to follow, though at a long distance, and not always with sensible comfort. But we may remember that, even when Jesus said on the cross,— "My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?"— He was still abiding in the Father's love. v11.—[These things...might be full.] In this verse our Lord gives two reasons why all the things in His discourses were addressed to the disciples. One was that "his joy might abide" or remain "in them,"— that they might have a comfortable share of their Master's joy in their salvation and redemption. The other was that their own individual joy might be filled up and perfected. Two joys are named, we must observe. One is that special joy mentioned in Hebrews 12:2, which our Lord feels in the redemption of His people. The other is that joy which His people feel from a sense of Christ's love to their souls. Here, as elsewhere, we should note, that the joy of believers is a thing that admits of degrees and increase. Cyril, on this verse, remarks that it is the mark of prosperous Christians to rejoice in those things in which Christ rejoices; and that this is the special object of the phrase, "my joy,"— "that ye may continually rejoice in those things in which I rejoice, and so your own inward happiness may be increased." Three weighty points demand our attention in this passage. On each of these the language of our Lord Jesus Christ is full of striking instruction. We should observe first, how our Lord speaks of the grace of brotherly love. He returns to it a second time, though He has already spoken of it in the former part of His discourse. He would have us know that we can never think too highly of love, attach too much weight to it, labor too much to practice it. Truths which our Master thinks it needful to enforce on us by repetition, must needs be of first-class importance. He commands us to love one another. "This is my commandment." It is a positive duty laid on our consciences to practice this grace. We have no more right to neglect it than any of the ten precepts given on Mount Sinai. He supplies the highest standard of love: "Love one another as I have loved you." No lower measure must content us. The weakest, the lowest, the most ignorant, the most defective disciple, is not to be despised. All are to be loved with an active, self-denying, self-sacrificing love. He that cannot do this, or will not try to do it, is disobeying the command of his Master. A precept like this should stir up in us great searchings of heart. It condemns the selfish, ill-natured, jealous, ill-tempered spirit of many professing Christians, with a sweeping condemnation. Sound views of doctrine, and knowledge of controversy, will avail us nothing at last, if we have known nothing of love. Without charity we may pass muster very well as Churchmen. But without charity we are no better, says Paul, than "sounding brass and tinkling cymbal." (1 Corinthians 13:1.) Where there is no Christlike love, there is no grace, no work of the Spirit, and no reality in our religion. Blessed are they that do not forget Christ's commandment! They are those who shall have right to the tree of life, and enter the celestial city. The unloving Christian is unfit for heaven. We should observe, secondly, how our Lord speaks of the relation between Himself and true believers. He says, "Henceforth I call you not servants . . . . but I have called you friends." This is indeed a glorious privilege. To know Christ, serve Christ, follow Christ, obey Christ, work in Christ's vineyard, fight Christ's battles, all this is no small matter. But for sinful men and women like ourselves to be called "friends of Christ," is something that our weak minds can hardly grasp and take in. The King of kings and Lord of lords not only pities and saves all them that believe in Him, but actually calls them His "friends." We need not wonder, in the face of such language as this, that Paul should say, the "love of Christ passeth knowledge." (Ephesians 3:19.) Let the expression before us encourage Christians to deal familiarly with Christ in prayer. Why should we be afraid to pour out all our hearts, and unbosom all our secrets, in speaking to one who calls us His "friends"? Let it cheer us in all the troubles and sorrows of life, and increase our confidence in our Lord. "He that hath friends," says Solomon, "will show himself friendly." (Proverbs 18:24.) Certainly our great Master in heaven will never forsake His "friends." Poor and unworthy as we are, He will not cast us off, but will stand by us and keep us to the end. David never forgot Jonathan, and the Son of David will never forget His people. None so rich, so strong, so independent, so well off, so thoroughly provided for, as the man of whom Christ says, "This is my friend"! We should observe, lastly, how our Lord speaks of the doctrine of election. He says, "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, . . . . that ye should go and bring forth fruit." The choosing here mentioned is evidently twofold. It includes not only the election to the Apostolic office, which was peculiar to the eleven, but the election to eternal life, which is the privilege of all believers. To this last "choosing," as it specially concerns ourselves, we may profitably direct our attention. Election to eternal life, is a truth of Scripture which we must receive humbly, and believe implicitly. Why the Lord Jesus calls some and does not call others, quickens whom He will, and leaves others alone in their sins, these are deep things which we cannot explain. Let it suffice us to know that it is a fact. God must begin the work of grace in a man's heart, or else a man will never be saved. Christ must first choose us and call us by His Spirit, or else we shall never choose Christ. Beyond doubt, if not saved, we shall have none to blame but ourselves. But if saved, we shall certainly trace up the beginning of our salvation, to the choosing grace of Christ. Our song to all eternity will be that which fell from the lips of Jonah: "Salvation is of the LORD." (Jonah 2:9.) Election is always to sanctification. Those whom Christ chooses out of mankind, He chooses not only that they may be saved, but that they may bear fruit, and fruit that can be seen. All other election beside this is a mere vain delusion, and a miserable invention of man. It was the faith and hope and love of the Thessalonians, which made Paul say, "I know your election of God." (1 Thessalonians 1:4.) Where there is no visible fruit of sanctification, we may be sure there is no election. Armed with such principles as these, we have no cause to be afraid of the doctrine of election. Like any other truth of the Gospel, it is liable to be abused and perverted. But to a pious mind, as the seventeenth Article of the Church of England truly says, it is a doctrine "full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort." ================== Notes— v12.—[This...commandment...love...loved you.] In this verse our Lord returns to the old lesson which He has taught before: the great duty of love towards other Christians. He backs the command by His own example. Nothing less than His matchless love towards sinners should be the measure and standard of love to one another. The frequent repetition of this command teaches the vast importance of Christian charity, and the great rarity of it. How any one can pretend to Christian hope who is ignorant of Christian love, it is hard to understand. He that supposes he is right in the sight of God, because his doctrinal views are correct, while he is unloving in his temper, and sharp, cross, snappish, and ill-natured in the use of his tongue, exhibits wretched ignorance of the first principles of Christ's Gospel. The crossness, spitefulness, jealousy, maliciousness, and general disagreableness of many high professors of "sound doctrine," are a positive scandal to Christianity. Where there is little love there can be little grace. v13.—[Greater love...for his friends.] In this verse our Lord teaches what should be the measure and degree of the love which Christians should have to one another. It should be a self-sacrificing love, even to death, as His was. He proved the greatness of His love by dying for His friends, and even for His enemies. (Romans 5:6-8.) It would be impossible for love to go further. There is no greater love than willingness to lay down life for those we love. Christ did this, and Christians should be willing to do the same. Let us note here that our Lord clearly speaks of His own death as a sacrificial and propitiatory death. Even His friends need a substitute to die for them. v14.—[Ye are my friends...command you.] This verse seems closely connected with the preceding one. "You are the friends for whom I lay down my life, if you do whatever things I command you." We are not to dream that we are Christ's friends, if we do not habitually practice His commands. Very striking is it to observe how frequently our Lord returns to this great principle, that obedience is the great test of vital Christianity, and doing the real mark of saving faith. Men who talk of being "the Lord's people," while they live in sin and neglect Christ's plain commands, are in the broad way that leads to destruction. v15.—[Henceforth I call you not servants, etc.] Having used the word "friends," our Lord tells His disciples that He has used that word purposely to cheer and encourage them. "Observe that I call you friends. I do so intentionally. I no longer call you servants; because the servant from his position knows not all his master's mind, and is not in his confidence. But to you I have revealed all the truths which my Father sent me to teach the world, and have kept nothing back. I may therefore justly call you friends." When our Lord speaks of "having made known all things" to the disciples, we must reasonably suppose that He means all things needful to their spiritual good, and all things that they were able to bear. The high privilege of a believer is strikingly taught here. He is a friend of Christ, as well as a child of God. No one need ever say I have no "friend" to turn to, so long as Christ is in heaven. Once only before this place does Christ call the disciples "friends." (Luke 12:4.) It is noteworthy that Abraham is the only person in the Old Testament who is called "the friend of God" (Isaiah 41:8), and of him the Lord says, "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?" (Genesis 18:17.) v16.—[Ye have not chosen Me, etc., etc.] The connecting link between this verse and the passage preceding it is not very clear. Hengstenberg thinks that it refers to the commandment just laid down, to love one another. "I may fairly lay down laws and rules for your conduct, because I first chose and called you to be members of my Church." I much prefer thinking that our Lord's object is to exalt the privilege of discipleship in the eyes of the eleven. "Remember, when I call you friends, that I called you into the number of my people, and chose you before you chose Me. See then how great and free and deep is my love to you." When our Lord speaks of "choosing" in this verse, I think that He means two things: viz., His choice of the eleven to be His apostles, and their eternal election to salvation. There seems to be a peculiar fullness in the phrase. The choice of the believer to eternal life is not the whole idea that our Lord means to convey. True as that glorious doctrine is, it is not the whole doctrine of this verse. The "choosing" includes a choosing for an office, like John 6:70, and seems to have a special reference to the choice of the eleven faithful apostles to be the first children of Christ's Church. Calvin certainly says, "The subject now in hand is not the ordinary election of believers, by which they are adopted to be God's children; but that special election by which Christ sets apart His disciples to the office of preaching the Gospel." (See John 6:70.) This also is the view of Chrysostom and Cyril.— But most of the Latin fathers apply the "choice" to eternal election. So also does Lampe. My own impression is, that, for once, the expression includes both official and eternal election. The Greek word rendered "ordained" means simply, "I have placed you" in a certain position as my apostles. When our Lord says, "I have chosen and ordained you that ye should go and bring forth fruit," I think He refers to the work of conversion and of building a Church in the world. "I chose and set you apart for this great purpose, that ye should go into all the world preaching the Gospel, and gathering in the harvest and fruit of saved souls; and that this work begun by you might remain and continue long after your deaths." And then to encourage the eleven, He adds, "It was part of my plan that so bringing forth fruit, ye should obtain by prayer everything that ye need for your work" It is vain to deny that the verse is a very difficult one both as to its connection and contents. As a general rule I hold strongly that the things spoken by our Lord in this last discourse decidedly belong to all believers in every age, and not to the eleven only. Yet there are perhaps exceptions, and this verse may be one.— The expression "Go and bring forth fruit" certainly seems to apply peculiarly to the eleven, who were to "GO" into all the world and preach the Gospel. It is as though our Lord said, "Take comfort in the thought that I chose you as my friends for this great purpose, to go and preach, to reap an abundant harvest of souls, to do lasting work, and to obtain a constant supply of grace and help, by prayer."— I cannot see how the word "go" can apply to any but the eleven to whom the Lord was speaking; and this weighs heavily with me in interpreting it.— "That your fruit should remain," again, is a phrase that I cannot apply to anything but the lasting and abiding work which the Apostles did when they went through the world preaching the Gospel. But I freely admit that I find in the verse "things hard to be understood." The passage before us opens with a renewed exhortation to brotherly love. For the third time in this discourse our Lord thinks it needful to press this precious grace on the attention of His disciples. Rare, indeed, must genuine charity be, when such repeated mention of it is made! In the present instance the connection in which it stands should be carefully observed. Christian love is placed in contrast to the hatred of the world. We are shown first, in this passage, what true Christians must expect to meet in this world,— hatred and persecution. If the disciples looked for kindness and gratitude from man they would be painfully disappointed. They must lay their account to be ill-treated like their Master.— "The world hateth you. Be not moved or surprised. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also." Facts, painful facts in every age, supply abundant proof that our Lord's warning was not without cause. Persecution was the lot of the Apostles and their companions wherever they went. Not more than one or two of them died quietly in his bed.— Persecution has been the lot of true believers throughout the eighteen Christian centuries of history. The doings of Roman Emperors and Roman Popes, the Spanish inquisition, the martyrdoms of Queen Mary's reign, all tell the same story.— Persecution is the lot of all really godly people at this very day. Ridicule, mockery, slander, misrepresentations still show the feeling of unconverted people against the true Christian. As it was in Paul's day, so it is now. In public and in private, at school and at college, at home and abroad, "all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (2 Timothy 3:12.) Mere churchmanship and outward profession are a cheap religion, of course, and cost a man nothing. But real vital Christianity will always bring with it a cross. To know and understand these things is of the utmost importance to our comfort. Nothing is so mischievous as the habit of indulging false expectations. Let us realize that human nature never changes, that "the carnal mind is enmity against God," and against God's image in His people. Let us settle it in our minds that no holiness of life or consistency of conduct will ever prevent wicked people hating the servants of Christ, just as they hated their blameless Master. Let us remember these things, and then we shall not be disappointed. We are shown secondly, in this passage, two reasons for patience under the persecution of this world. Each is weighty, and supplies matter for much thought. For one thing, persecution is the cup of which Christ Himself drank. Faultless as He was in everything, in temper, word, and deed,— unwearied as He was in works of kindness, always going about doing good,— never was any one so hated as Jesus was to the last day of His earthly ministry. Scribes and High Priests, Pharisees and Sadducees, Jews and Gentiles, united in pouring contempt on Him, and opposing Him, and never rested till He was put to death. Surely this simple fact alone should sustain our spirits and prevent our being cast down by the hatred of man. Let us consider that we are only walking in our Master's footsteps, and sharing our Master's portion. Do we deserve to be better treated? Are we better than He? Let us fight against these murmuring thoughts. Let us drink quietly the cup which our Father gives us. Above all, let us often call to mind the saying, "Remember the word that I spake unto you, The servant is not greater than his Master." For another thing, persecution helps to prove that we are children of God, and have treasure in heaven. It supplies evidence that we are really born again, that we have grace in our hearts, and are heirs of glory: "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." Persecution, in short, is like the goldsmith's Hall mark on real silver and gold: it is one of the marks of a converted man. Let us nerve our minds with this cheering thought, when we feel ready to faint and give way under the world's hatred. No doubt it is hard to bear, and the more hard when our conscience tells us we are innocent. But after all let us never forget that it is a token for good. It is a symptom of a work begun within us by the Holy Ghost, which can never be overthrown. We may fall back on that wonderful promise, "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven." (Matthew 5:11-12.) When the world has said and done its worst, it cannot rob believers of that promise. Let us leave the whole subject with a feeling of deep pity for those who persecute others on account of their religion. Often, very often, as our Lord says, they do it because they know no better. "They know not Him that sent Me." Like our Divine Master and His servant Stephen, let us pray for those who despitefully use us and persecute us. Their persecution rarely does us harm, and often drives us nearer to Christ, the Bible, and the throne of grace. Our intercession, if heard on high, may bring down blessings on their souls. ================== Notes— v17.—[These things I command...love one another.] The expression, "these things," must either refer backwards to what has just been said, or forwards to what is going to be said. I prefer the latter view. "I press on you these repeated charges to love one another, because you must expect the hatred of the world. The more the world hates you, the more you ought to love one another and stick together." v18.—[If...world hate...hated Me...you.] The object of this verse is to encourage and comfort the disciples under the hatred and enmity of the unbelieving Jews. "Do not be surprised and discouraged if you find yourselves hated and persecuted by an unbelieving world. Do not think the fault is yours. You know, and have seen, and must remember that this same world has always hated and persecuted Me before you, although it could lay no fault to my charge." The principle of the verse will be found true in every age. It is not the weaknesses and inconsistencies of Christians that the world hates, but their grace. Christians should carefully remember that their spotless and blameless Master was bitterly hated by the world when He was on earth, and they must count it no strange thing if they are treated in the same way. Hengstenberg thinks that the words "ye know" should be taken as an imperative, and not an indicative, like "remember," in John 15:20. I doubt this; but the construction of the Greek language makes it an open question. The Greek word rendered "before" is literally "first." It is the same that is translated "before" in John 1:15 and John 1:30. v19.—[If ye were of the world, etc.] In this verse our Lord shows the disciples that the hatred of the world, however painful to bear, is a satisfactory evidence of their state before God. It is like "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you," and "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you." This comes out more clearly if we invert the order of the verse. "The world hates you because you are not like itself, but have a different faith and live a different life, and because I have drawn you out of it to be my disciples and apostles. The world always loves what is like itself, and would love you if your standard of faith and life was like its own. The very hatred of the world, therefore, is a satisfactory evidence that you are my disciples." Luther remarks, "Towards each other, apart from Christ, the men of the world are as little friends as dogs and cats. In all that concerns Christ they are unanimous in hatred." The expression "his own," means literally "its own thing,"— its own spirit, tone, character, faith, and life. The whole verse contains rich experimental comfort for true Christians. There are few things that we are so slow to realize as the enmity of natural man against God, and all that have anything of God's image; and forgetfulness of it often brings believers into much trouble and perplexity of mind. They do not expect the world's hatred, and are surprised when they meet with it. This verse teaches plainly that they ought not to be surprised. Burgon quotes a saying of Bishop Sanderson: "The godly are in the world as strangers, and in a foreign, yea in an enemy's country; and they look upon the world, and are looked upon by it, as strangers; and are used by it accordingly." v20.—[Remember the word, etc.] Our Lord continues in this verse the same subject: viz., what the disciples must expect from the world. He reminds the eleven of the things He had said before, when He first sent them out to preach. (Matthew 10:24; Luke 6:40.) He had always told them they must not expect to be better treated than He had been Himself. He quotes the proverbial saying that "a servant must not expect to fare better than his master." "Did they persecute Me? Then they will persecute you. Did they keep, mind, and attend to my teaching? As a rule the greater part did not, and you must expect the same." We ought to observe carefully how strongly this lesson about the world is laid down by our Lord. It was doubtless spoken for all time, and with a special reference to believers' slowness to realize it. If there is anything that true Christians seem incessantly forgetting, and seem to need incessantly reminding of, it is the real feeling of unconverted people towards them, and the treatment they must expect to meet with. Wrong expectations are one great cause of Christians feeling troubled and perplexed. That word "remember,"— "do remember,"— has a mine of meaning in it. Gataker, Bengel, and some others, think that the Greek word rendered "keep," here means "to observe with a malicious intention" to carp at it: but this seems improbable. Whether, however, there is not a latent irony in the sentence is doubtful. v21.—[But all these things...name's sake.] Our Lord here tells His disciples that He Himself was the cause of all the enmity and hatred they would meet with. They would be hated on account of their Master, more than on account of themselves. "These things" must refer apparently to the expression, "hate, persecute, and keep your saying." It may be some comfort to a persecuted Christian to think that it is for His Master's sake that he is ill used. He is "filling up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ." (Colossians 1:24.) He is "bearing the reproach of Christ." (Hebrews 11:26.) [Because they know not...sent Me.] This sentence is elliptical. It means that dark ignorance was the great cause of the conduct of the unbelieving Jews. They did not rightly know God the Father who had sent Christ into the world. They did not know that Christ was the Messiah whom the Father had promised to send. In this state of ignorance they blindly persecuted Christ and His disciples. This judicial blindness and hardness of the Jewish nation in the time of our Lord and His Apostles is a thing that ought to be carefully observed by all Bible-readers. (See Acts 3:17; Acts 13:27; Acts 28:25-27; 1 Corinthians 2:8; 2 Corinthians 3:14.) It was a peculiar judicial blindness, we must remember, to which the whole nation was given over, like Pharaoh, as a final punishment for many centuries of idolatry, wickedness, and unbelief. Nothing but this seems thoroughly to account for the extraordinary unbelief of many of our Lord's hearers. In leaving this passage we should not fail to notice the singular frequency with which our Lord speaks of "the world." Six times he mentions it. We should also notice the singular resemblance between the line of argument adopted in the passage, and the line of John in the third chapter of his first Epistle. The Apostle writes his Epistle in that part, as if he had this chapter before him. In these verses our Lord Jesus Christ handles three subjects of great importance. They are difficult subjects, no doubt, subjects on which we may easily fall into error. But the words before us throw much light upon them. We should observe, for one thing, how our Lord speaks of the misuse of religious privileges. It intensifies man's guilt, and will increase his condemnation. He tells His disciples that if He had not "spoken" and "done" among the Jews things which none ever spoke or did before, "they had not had sin." By this, we must remember, He means, "they had not been so sinful and so guilty as they are now." But now they were utterly without excuse. They had seen Christ's works, and heard Christ's teaching, and yet remained unbelieving. What more could be done for them? Nothing— absolutely nothing! They wilfully sinned against the clearest possible light, and were of all men most guilty. Let us settle it down as a first principle in our religion, that religious privileges are in a certain sense very dangerous things. If they do not help us toward heaven, they will only sink us deeper into hell. They add to our responsibility. "To whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required." (Luke 12:48.) He that dwells in a land of open Bibles and preached Gospel, and yet dreams that he will stand in the judgment day on the same level with an untaught Chinese, is fearfully deceived. He will find to his own cost, except he repents, that his judgment will be according to his light. The mere fact that he had knowledge and did not improve it, will of itself prove one of his greatest sins. "He that knew His Master's will and did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47.) Well would it be for all professing Christians in England, if this point was more thoroughly considered! Nothing is more common than to hear men taking comfort in the thought that they "know" what is right, while at the same time they are evidently unconverted, and unfit to die. They rest in that unhappy phrase, "We know it, we know it," as if knowledge could wash away all their sins,— forgetting that the devil has more knowledge than any of us, and yet is no better for it. Let the burning words of our Lord in the passage now before us, sink down into our hearts, and never be forgotten: "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin." To see light and not use it, to possess knowledge and yet not turn it to account, to be able to say "I know," and yet not to say "I believe," will place us at the lowest place on Christ's left hand, in the great day of judgment. We should observe, for another thing, in these verses, how our Lord speaks of the Holy Ghost. He speaks of Him as a Person. He is "the Comforter" who is to come; He is One sent and "proceeding;" He is One whose office it is to "testify." These are not words that can be used of a mere influence or inward feeling. So to interpret them is to contradict common sense, and to strain the meaning of plain language. Reason and fairness require us to understand that it is a personal Being who is here mentioned, even He whom we are justly taught to adore as the third Person in the blessed Trinity. Again, our Lord speaks of the Holy Ghost as One whom He "will send from the Father," and One "who proceedeth from the Father." These are deep sayings, no doubt, so deep that we have no line to fathom them. The mere fact that for centuries the Eastern and Western Churches of Christendom have been divided about their meaning, should teach us to handle them with modesty and reverence. One thing, at all events, is very clear and plain. There is a close and intimate connection between the Spirit, the Father, and the Son. Why the Holy Ghost should be said to be sent by the Son, and to proceed from the Father, in this verse, we cannot tell. But we may quietly repose our minds in the thought expressed in an ancient creed, that "In this Trinity none is afore or after other: none is greater or less than another."— "Such as the Father is such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost."— Above all, we may rest in the comfortable truth that in the salvation of our souls all three Persons in the Trinity equally co-operate. It was God in Trinity who said, "Let us create," and it is God in Trinity who says, "Let us save." Forever let us take heed to our doctrine about the Holy Spirit. Let us make sure that we hold sound and Scriptural views of His nature, His Person, and His operations. A religion which entirely leaves Him out, and gives Him no place, is far from uncommon. Let us beware that such a religion is not ours. "Where is the Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ?" should be the first testing question about our Christianity. "Where is the Holy Ghost?" should be the second question. Let us take good heed that the work of the Spirit is not so buried under extravagant views of the Church, the ministry, and the Sacraments, that the real Holy Ghost of Scripture is completely put out of sight. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." (Romans 8:9.) No religion deserves to be called Scriptural and apostolic, in which the work of the Spirit does not stand forth prominently, and occupy a principal place. We should observe lastly, in these verses, how our Lord speaks of the special office of the Apostles. They were to be His witnesses in the world. "Ye also shall bear witness." The expression is singularly instructive and full of meaning. It taught the eleven what they must expect their portion to be, so long as they lived. They would have to bear testimony to facts which many would not believe, and to truths which the natural heart would dislike. They would often have to stand alone, a few against many, a little flock against a great multitude. None of these things must move them. They must count it no strange thing to be persecuted, hated, opposed, and discredited. They must not mind it. To witness was their grand duty, whether men believed them or not. So witnessing, their record would be on high, in God's book of remembrance; and so witnessing, sooner or later, the Judge of all would give them a crown of glory that fadeth not away. Let us never forget, as we leave this passage, that the position of the Apostles is that which, in a certain sense, every true Christian must fill, as long as the world stands. We must all be witnesses for Christ. We must not be ashamed to stand up for Christ's cause, to speak out for Christ, and to persist in maintaining the truth of Christ's Gospel. Wherever we live, in town or in country, in public or in private, abroad or at home, we must boldly confess our Master on every opportunity. So doing, we shall walk in the steps of the Apostles, though at a long interval. So doing, we shall please our Master, and may hope at last that we shall receive the Apostles' reward. ================== Notes— v22.—[If I had not come, etc.] In this and the three following verses our Lord shows the peculiar guilt and wickedness of the Jews in not believing Him.— "If I had not come among them and spoken such words as no one ever spake before, and taught such truths as no one ever taught before, they would not have been so guilty as they are. But now they have no excuse for their unbelief. They cannot say that they were not taught in the plainest way who I am and who sent Me." Does not our Lord in this verse point to the famous prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:18-19) of a Prophet to be raised up like Moses, to whom the Jews were to hearken? Does He not seem to say, "I have come as that Prophet, and have spoken my Father's words, and they ought to have received and hearkened to them? The refusal of the promised Prophet is of itself their condemnation, and leaves them without excuse." The word rendered "cloke," would have been better as in the margin, "excuse." The clause literally is, "They have now no excuse concerning their sin." When our Lord says "they had not had sin," He does not of course mean they would not have been sinners at all. It is only another way of putting the degree of their guilt. "They would have been less guilty than they are now. To have heard Me and not believed will increase their condemnation." (Compare John 9:41.) Let us note that there are degrees of sin, and that nothing seems to increase man's guiltiness so much as to have privileges, and not use them aright. v23.—[He...hateth Me...Father also.] The object of this verse is to supply a reason why the guilt of hearing Christ without believing was so great. It was because Christ's words were not only His words but the Father's also.— "He that hears Me, and hates and refuses my teachings, is hating not Me only but my Father, because I and my Father are one."— Once more we are reminded of the close union between the first and second Persons of the Trinity. The idea that we can worship and serve God while we neglect Christ, is a baseless dream. Neglecting Christ, we neglect the Father. (See Psalms 69:9.) Poole remarks, "It is a common error of the world, that many pretend to love God, while yet they are manifest haters of Christ and His Gospel. Our Saviour saith, this is impossible; whosoever hateth him who is sent, hateth also him who sent him." Hengstenberg observes, "The Jews professed that they loved God, and that on the ground of that love they hated Christ; the God, however, whom they loved was not the true God, but a phantom which they named God. The fact that they rejected Christ, in spite of all His words of spirit and truth, showed them to be enemies of the Father." v24.—[If I had not done, etc.] In this verse our Lord gives another proof of the exceeding wickedness of the Jews. They had seen works and miracles done under their eyes, in confirmation of Christ's Divine mission, more numerous and mighty than any one had ever worked before, and yet they continued unbelieving. The more they saw of Him the more they hated Him; and in so hating Him, they hated not Him only, but the Father which sent Him.— "The Jews would not be so guilty as they now are, if they had not seen my miracles as well as heard my words. But now they have both seen and heard overwhelming proofs of my Divine mission, and yet remain unbelieving. They have had the clearest evidence that could be given— the evidence of works and words; and yet they have persisted in hating both Me and the Father which sent Me." Burgon here remarks, "It is not meant that every single miracle which our Lord performed, surpassed in wonder any single miracle recorded of Moses, Elijah, or Elisha; for that would not be true. But Christ's works were made so great by the way He wrought them. Without effort, by a mere word, He showed that all creation was obedient to His will." Let us carefully observe how our Lord appeals to His miracles as a proof of His Messiahship, which ought to have convinced the Jews. They are a part of the evidences of Christianity which ought never to be kept back or omitted. v25.—[But this cometh to pass, etc.] The manner in which our Lord quotes Scripture here is so common in the Gospels that it needs little remark. The things He mentions did not happen in order that Scripture might be fulfilled, but by their happening Scripture was fulfilled. "Their law" here is a general expression denoting the whole Old Testament Scripture. "Without a cause" means literally "gratuitously, as a free gift." The word occurs only nine times in the New Testament. Six times it is rendered "freely," once "in vain," once "for nought," and once "without a cause." What precise text our Lord had in view is not quite clear, and some have thought that He only referred generally to Scripture testimony, like Matthew 2:23. Others however point to Psalms 35:19, and Psalms 69:4. Let us note that gratuitous, ceaseless hatred was our Lord's portion on earth; and His true disciples in every age must never wonder if they share His lot. v26.—[But when the Comforter, etc.] The object of this verse appears to be the encouragement of the disciples. They were not to despond or feel hopeless because of the unbelief and hardness of the Jews. A witness would be raised up by and bye, whose evidence the Jews would not be able to resist. There would come One who would give such testimony to the Divine mission of Christ, that even the wicked Jews would be silenced and crushed, although unconverted. Who was this promised witness? It was the Holy Ghost, who was to come forth with peculiar power in the day of Pentecost, and to abide in the early Church. The second chapter of Acts was the first fulfilment of the verse. The irresistible influence which the Gospel obtained in Jerusalem, in spite of all the efforts of scribe and priest, and Pharisee and Sadducee, was another fulfilment. The "proceeding" here spoken of, we must remember, does not merely mean that the Spirit is sent by the Father, and comes from the Father. All the best interpreters agree in thinking, that it means the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. We should carefully note in this verse the language which our Lord uses concerning the Holy Ghost. He is the "Comforter," or rather the Advocate, as we have seen before. He is the "Spirit of truth," also, as we have seen before. But we should specially mark that Christ says, "I will send Him;" and also says, He "proceedeth from the Father." The singular number is used: "He proceedeth," not "will proceed."— This then is one of those texts which appears to supply evidence of the Holy Ghost proceeding both from the Father and from the Son, though not direct evidence. The whole Greek Church, however, denies the procession from the Son; and it must be honestly conceded that the Scripture does not so distinctly and directly assert it as the procession from the Father. Yet, on the other hand, it is hard to understand how the Son can send the Spirit, and the Spirit in no sense proceed from the Son. The subject is a deep and mysterious one, and we have not eyes to see everything about it. The difference between the Eastern and Western Churches may after all be more apparent than real; and we must beware of denouncing men as heretics, whom perhaps God has received. But in any case the text before us is one which ought to be carefully noted, as one on which much of the controversy hinges. Let us take care that we ourselves have the Holy Spirit in our hearts; and when we die we shall know all about the point in dispute. One thing at any rate comes out very plainly here, and that is the personality of the Holy Ghost. In the Greek it stands out very prominently in the gender of the pronouns, which our English language cannot reach. The word we render "whom," in the Greek text is masculine;— "which" is neuter;— and "he" is masculine again. v27.—[And ye also shall bear witness.] In this verse our Lord continues the line of encouragement which He began in the preceding verse. Notwithstanding all the hardness and unbelief of the Jews, even the eleven disciples would be enabled to bear a testimony to their Lord's Divine mission, which none of their enemies would be able to gainsay or resist. How remarkably this was fulfilled we know from the first seven chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. For instance, the verse, "with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 4:33), is an exact accomplishment of the promise of the text. It is noteworthy that both the verbs in this verse are in the present tense. They would be naturally rendered, "Ye do bear witness," and, "Ye are with Me." Does this point to the certainty of the testimony being borne? "Ye do bear witness:" you are sure to be enabled to do it. In leaving this chapter, let us not fail to note how systematically our blessed Master gave His disciples instruction on three most important points. The first was their relation to Himself. They were to abide in close union with Him, like branches in a vine. The second was their relation to one another. They were to love one another with a deep, self-sacrificing love, like their Master's. The third was their relation to the world. They were to expect its hatred, not be surprised at it; to bear it patiently, and not be afraid of it. The opening verses of this chapter contain three important utterances of Christ, which deserve our special attention. For one thing, we find our Lord delivering a remarkable prophecy. He tells His disciples that they will be cast out of the Jewish Church, and persecuted even to the death:— "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." How strange that seems at first sight! Excommunication, suffering, and death, are the portion that the Prince of Peace predicts to His disciples. So far from receiving them and their message with gratitude, the world would hate them, despitefully use them, and put them to death. And, worst of all, their persecutors would actually persuade themselves that it was right to persecute, and would inflict the cruelest injuries in the sacred name of religion. How true the prediction has turned out! Like every other prophecy of Scripture, it has been fulfilled to the very letter. The Acts of the Apostles show us how the unbelieving Jews persecuted the early Christians. The pages of history tell us what horrible crimes have been committed by the Popish Inquisition. The annals of our own country inform us how our holy Reformers were burned at the stake for their religion, by men who professed to do all they did from zeal for pure Christianity. Unlikely and incredible as it might seem at the time, the great Prophet of the Church has been found in this, as in everything else, to have predicted nothing but literal truth. Let it never surprise us to hear of true Christians being persecuted, in one way or another, even in our own day. Human nature never changes. Grace is never really popular. The quantity of persecution which God's children have to suffer in every rank of life, even now, if they confess their Master, is far greater than the thoughtless world supposes. They only know it who go through it, at school, at college, in the counting-house, in the barrack-room, on board the ship. Those words shall always be found true: "All that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution." (2 Timothy 3:12.) Let us never forget that religious earnestness alone is no proof that a man is a sound Christian. Not all zeal is right: it may be a zeal without knowledge. No one is so mischievous as a blundering, ignorant zealot. Not all earnestness is trustworthy: without the leading of God's Spirit, it may lead a man so far astray, that, like Saul, he will persecute Christ himself. Some bigots fancy they are doing God service, when they are actually fighting against His truth, and trampling on His people. Let us pray that we may have light as well as zeal. For another thing, we find our Lord explaining His special reason for delivering the prophecy just referred to, as well as all His discourse. "These things," He says, "I have spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended." Well did our Lord know that nothing is so dangerous to our comfort as to indulge false expectations. He therefore prepared His disciples for what they must expect to meet with in His service. Forewarned, forearmed! They must not look for a smooth course and a peaceful journey. They must make up their minds to battles, conflicts, wounds, opposition, persecution, and perhaps even death. Like a wise general, He did not conceal from His soldiers the nature of the campaign they were beginning. He told them all that was before them, in faithfulness and love, that when the time of trial came, they might remember His words, and not be disappointed and offended. He wisely forewarned them that the cross was the way to the crown. To count the cost is one of the first duties that ought to be pressed on Christians in every age. It is no kindness to young beginners to paint the service of Christ in false colors, and to keep back from them the old truth, "Through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom of God." By prophesying smooth things, and crying "Peace," we may easily fill the ranks of Christ's army with professing soldiers. But they are just the soldiers, who, like the stony-ground hearers, in time of tribulation will fall away, and turn back in the day of battle. No Christian is in a healthy state of mind who is not prepared for trouble and persecution. He that expects to cross the troubled waters of this world, and to reach heaven with wind and tide always in his favor, knows nothing yet as he ought to know. We never can tell what is before us in life. But of one thing we may be very sure: we must carry the cross if we would wear the crown. Let us grasp this principle firmly, and never forget it. Then, when the hour of trial comes, we shall "not be offended." In the last place, we find our Lord giving a special reason why it was expedient for Him to go away from His disciples. "If I do not go away," He says, "the Comforter will not come unto you." We can well suppose that our gracious Lord saw the minds of His disciples crushed at the idea of His leaving them. Little as they realized His full meaning, on this, as well as on other occasions, they evidently had a vague notion that they were about to be left, like orphans, in a cold and unkind world, by their Almighty Friend. Their hearts quailed and shrunk back at the thought. Most graciously does our Lord cheer them by words of deep and mysterious meaning. He tells them that His departure, however painful it might seem, was not an evil, but a good. They would actually find it was not a loss, but a gain. His bodily absence would be more useful than His presence. It is vain to deny that this is a somewhat dark saying. It seems at first sight hard to understand how in any sense it could be good that Christ should go away from His disciples. Yet a little reflection may show us that, like all our Lord's sayings, this remarkable utterance was wise, and right, and true. The following points, at any rate, deserve attentive consideration. If Christ had not died, risen again, and ascended up into heaven, it is plain that the Holy Ghost could not have come down with special power on the day of Pentecost, and bestowed His manifold gifts on the Church. Mysterious as it may be, there was a connection in the eternal counsels of God, between the ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit. If Christ had remained bodily with the disciples, He could not have been in more places than one at the same time. The presence of the Spirit whom He sent down, would fill every place where believers were assembled in His name, in every part of the world. If Christ had remained upon earth, and not gone up into heaven, He could not have become a High Priest for His people in the same full and perfect manner that He became after His ascension. He went away to sit down at the right hand of God, and to appear for us, in our human nature glorified, as our Advocate with the Father. Finally, if Christ had always remained bodily with His disciples, there would have been far less room for the exercise of their faith and hope and trust, than there was when He went away. Their graces would not have been called into such active exercise, and they would have had less opportunity of glorifying God, and exhibiting His power in the world. After all, there remains the broad fact that after the Lord Jesus went away, and the Comforter came down on the day of Pentecost, the religion of the disciples became a new thing altogether. The growth of their knowledge, and faith, and hope, and zeal, and courage, was so remarkable, that they were twice the men they were before. They did far more for Christ when He was absent, than they had ever done when He was present. What stronger proof can we require that it was expedient for them that their Master should go away! Let us leave the whole subject with a deep conviction that it is not the carnal presence of Christ in the midst of us, so much as the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, that is essential to a high standard of Christianity. What we should all desire and long for is not Christ's body literally touched with our hands and received into our mouths, but Christ dwelling spiritually in our hearts by the grace of the Holy Ghost. ================== Notes— v1.—[These things...spoken...not...offended.] The chapter we now begin is a direct continuation of the last chapter, without break or pause. Our Lord's object in this first verse is to cheer and revive the minds of the Apostles, and to prevent them being discouraged by the persecution of the unbelieving Jews. "I have spoken the things which I have just been speaking, in order to obviate the depressing effect of the treatment you will receive. Lest you should be stumbled and offended by the conduct of your enemies, I have told you the things you have just heard." Stier remarks that "these things" include both the warning of the world's hatred and the promise of the witnessing Spirit. Foreknowledge of the world's hatred would prevent the disciples being surprised and disappointed. The promise of the Spirit would cheer and encourage. The word "offended" is literally "scandalized." It is a remarkable instance of a word which has greatly changed its meaning since the last translation of the Bible, to the great perplexity and injury of many Bible readers. How great a stumbling-block it often is to young and unestablished Christians to find themselves persecuted and ill-used for their religion, it is needless to point out. Our Lord knew this, and took care to arm the eleven apostles with warnings. He never kept back the cross, or concealed the difficulties in the way to heaven. v2.—[They shall put...out...synagogue.] In this verse our Lord tells the disciples most plainly what they must expect. "They will excommunicate you, and cast you out of the Jewish Church, and expel you from their assemblies." The Greek words are curious: "They will make you out-of-synagogue men." How great a grief and loss this was to a Jew we have little idea, unless we have studied the work of Christianity among the Jews in modern times. Nothing affects a Jew so much as expulsion from the synagogue, or excommunication. There is no nominative here to which we can refer "they." It is an Hebraism equivalent to "You will be put out." Hengstenberg observes, "The disciples were not to depart voluntarily out of the synagogue, but to await what would happen to them on a full proclamation of the Gospel. This gives a very intelligible hint to the faithful in times of the Church's decline: viz., that they should keep far from their thoughts the idea of arbitrary secession. The new formation is right only when the casting out has gone before." Calvin remarks, "We have no reason to be alarmed at the Pope's excommunications, with which he thunders against us on account of the Gospel. They will do us no more injury than those ancient excommunications which were made against the apostles." The curse causeless shall not come. [Yea...time cometh...killeth...service.] In this clause our Lord warns the eleven that they must not be surprised if even death was the final result of discipleship. There would be no length of persecution to which their enemies would not go. "The hour cometh when he who has killed you will think that in so doing he offers to God an acceptable service." How true this has proved, the history of all religious persecution has abundantly showed. Who can doubt that Saul before his conversion was sincere? "I verily thought that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." (Acts 26:9.) The persecutions carried on in Spain, and Portugal, and France, and England, by Romanists against Protestants, are painful examples of the same thing. Men have actually thought that killing people was doing a holy and a good action. The extent to which conscience may be blinded, until a man actually thinks that he is doing a godly deed, when in reality he is committing a huge sin, is one of the most painful phenomena in human nature. Many of those who burned our Reformers in the days of Queen Mary were sincere and in earnest. "Earnestness" is not the slightest proof that a man is right in his religion. It is one of the most monstrous idols of modern times. The folly of those who are content with "earnestness," and say that all "earnest" men go to heaven, is abundantly shown by this text. Ferus remarks that "good intentions and meanings are no better than impiety, if they do not spring from God's Word." v3.—[And these things will they do, etc.] Here, as in a former verse, our Lord points to blind ignorance as the true cause of the enmity of the Jews against Himself and His disciples. "They do not rightly know my Father, in spite of their profession of religious knowledge; nor Me, whom the Father hath sent. Hence they hate and persecute." (See John 15:21.) v4.—[But these things have I told, etc.] Here once more our Lord repeats His reasons for telling the disciples what they must expect. "I have told you what treatment you will receive, in order that you may not be surprised when the time of trial comes, but may remember that I foretold you all, and not be cast down. Nothing unforeseen, nothing unpredicted, you will feel, happens to us. Our Master told us it would be so." The word "I," in the sentence, "that ye may remember that I told you," is emphatic in the Greek. It seems to mean, "Remember that I myself, your Master, told you." Our Lord adds the reason why He had not dwelt on these trials before. "I did not tell you much of these things at the beginning of your discipleship, because I was with you, and would not disturb your minds with painful tidings while you were learning the first principles of the Gospel. But now that I am about to leave you, it is needful to forewarn you of things you are likely to meet with." Of course it cannot be said that our Lord had never and in no sense before this time foretold persecution and the cross to His disciples. But it must mean that He did not think it needful to dwell much on the subject, so long as He was with them and taking care of them. v5.—[But now I go...whither goest thou?] These words seem to convey a reproof to the disciples for not inquiring more earnestly about the heavenly home to which their Master was going. Peter, no doubt, had said with vague curiosity, "Whither goest Thou?" John 13:36); but his question had not originated in a desire to know the place, so much as in surprise that His Lord was going at all. Our Lord seems here to say, "If your hearts were in a right frame, you would seek to understand the nature of my going and the place to which I go." Let us observe that the disciples, with all their grace, were slow to use their opportunities, and to seek the knowledge which they might have obtained. They had not because they asked not. Let us observe that our Lord spoke of His departure as a "going back to Him that sent Him," His mission being finished and His work done. v6.—[But because...sorrow...your heart.] Here our Lord continues the reproof of the last verse. The minds of the eleven were absorbed and overwhelmed with sorrow at the thought of their Master going, and they could think of nothing else. Instead of seizing the little time that was left, in order to learn more from His lips about His place and work in heaven, they were completely taken up with sorrow, and could think of nothing else but their Master's departure. We should do well to mark how mischievous overmuch sorrow is, and to seek grace to keep it in proper control. No affection, if uncontrolled, so disarranges the order of men's minds, and unfits them for the duties of their calling. v7.—[Nevertheless, I tell you the truth, etc.] In this verse we see our Lord mercifully condescending to show His disciples the necessity for His leaving them. It was expedient. It was for their good. It was for the real ultimate benefit of themselves and the whole Church that He should go away. If He did not go away the great outpouring of the Holy Ghost, so often promised, could not come down on them and the world. If He went away He would send the Comforter. If He did not go away the Comforter would not come. There is undeniably much that is deep and mysterious about the contents of this verse. We can only speak with reverence of the matter it unfolds. It seems clearly laid down that the Holy Ghost's coming down into the world with influence and grace, was a thing dependent on our Lord's dying, rising again, and ascending into heaven. It seems to be part of the eternal covenant of man's salvation that the Son should be incarnate, die, and rise again; and that then, as a consequence, the Holy Spirit should be poured out with mighty influence on mankind, and the Gentile Churches be brought into the fold, and Christianity spread over a vast portion of the world. This seems plainly taught, and this we must simply believe. If any one asks "why the Holy Ghost could not be poured down without Christ's going away?" it is safest to reply, that we do not know. One thing is very clear. The universal invisible presence of the Holy Ghost in the Church, is better than the visible bodily presence of Christ with the Church. Christ's body could only be in one place. The Holy Ghost can be everywhere at one and the same time.— Whatever the disciples might think, it was far better for Christ to go up to heaven, and sit at God's right hand as their Priest, and send down the Holy Ghost to be with the Church till He came again, than for Christ to tarry with them as He had done.— Flesh and blood might have liked better to keep Christ on earth, eating and drinking, and walking and talking in Palestine. But it was far better for the souls of men that Christ should finish His work, go up to heaven, take up His office there in the holy of holies, and send down the Holy Spirit on the Church and the world. Calvin remarks, "Far more advantageous and far more desirable is that presence of Christ, by which He communicates Himself to us through the grace and power of His Spirit, than if He were present before our eyes." Alford remarks, "The dispensation of the Spirit is a more blessed manifestation of God than was even the bodily presence of the risen Saviour." Bishop Andrews remarks, "We shall never see the absolute necessity of the Holy Ghost's coming, until we see the inconvenience of His not coming." The expression, "I tell you the truth," is a very solemn, emphatic one. It is like, "Verily, verily I say, whether you believe me or not, it is true." The expression, "I will send," seems again to point to the equal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and the Father. In another place it is, "The Father will send." Here, "I will send." After all no text throws more light on this deep verse than Psalms 68:18 : "Thou hast ascended up on high, and received gifts for men; that the LORD God might dwell among them." These words surely point out that the Holy Ghost's dwelling among men was a gift purchased by the Son. Does not the verse teach us that those who make much of the "corporal presence" of Christ, so called, in the Lord's Supper, as a thing we should hold and believe, are in great error? There is something of far more importance to the Church, between the first and second advents, than any corporal presence of Christ, and that is the presence of the Holy Ghost. This is the real presence we should make much of, and desire to feel more. Our question should be not, "Is Christ's body here?"— but, "Is the Spirit, the Comforter here?"— Excessive craving after Christ's bodily presence, before the second advent, is in reality a dishonouring of the Holy Ghost. We should make much of the Spirit. Ecolampadius remarks, "Those who try to defend an eating of Christ, or a presence of Christ, in the Sacramental bread, as if His body was at the same time with us and in heaven, are manifestly at variance with this text." Henry remarks here: "The presence of the Holy Spirit is greater comfort and advantage to us than the presence of Christ in the flesh. Christ's bodily presence was comfortable, but the Spirit is more intimately a Comforter than Christ in His fleshly presence; because the Spirit can comfort all believers at once in all places, while Christ's bodily presence can comfort but few, and that only in one place at once. The benefit of Christ's presence was great, but the advantage of the Spirit's renovation and holy inspiration is much greater." When our Lord in this passage speaks of the Holy Spirit "coming," we must take care that we do not misunderstand His meaning. On the one hand, we must remember that the Holy Ghost was in all believers in the Old Testament days, from the very beginning. No man was ever saved from the power of sin, and made a saint, except by the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Abraham, and Isaac, and Samuel, and David, and the Prophets, were made what they were by the operation of the Holy Ghost. On the other hand, we must never forget that after Christ's ascension the Holy Ghost was poured down on men with far greater energy as individuals, and with far wider influence on the nations of the world at large, than He was ever poured out before. It is this increased energy and influence that our Lord has in view in the verses before us. He meant that after His own ascension the Holy Ghost would "come" down into the world with such a vastly increased power, that it would seem as if He had "come" for the first time, and had never been in the world before. The difficulty of rightly explaining the wondrous sayings of our Lord in this place is undeniably very great. It may well be doubted whether the full meaning of His words has ever been entirely grasped by man, and whether there is not something at the bottom which has not been completely unfolded. The common, superficial explanation, that our Lord only meant that the work of the Spirit in saving individual believers is to convince them of their own sins, of Christ's righteousness, and of the certainty of judgment at last, will hardly satisfy thinking minds. It is a short-cut and superficial way of getting over Scripture difficulties. It contains excellent and sound doctrine, no doubt, but it does not meet the full meaning of our Lord's words. It is truth, but not the truth of the text. It is not individuals here and there whom He says the Spirit is to convince, but the world. Let us see whether we cannot find a fuller and more satisfactory interpretation. For one thing, our Lord probably meant to show us what the Holy Ghost would do to the world of unbelieving Jews. He would convince them "of sin, and righteousness, and judgment." He would convince the Jews "of sin." He would compel them to feel and acknowledge in their own minds, that in rejecting Jesus of Nazareth they had committed a great sin, and were guilty of gross unbelief. He would convince the Jews of "righteousness." He would press home on their consciences that Jesus of Nazareth was not an impostor and a deceiver, as they had said, but a holy, just, and blameless Person, whom God had owned by receiving up into heaven. He would convince the Jews of "judgment." He would oblige them to see that Jesus of Nazareth had conquered, overcome, and judged the devil and all his host, and was exalted to be a Prince and a Savior at the right hand of God. That the Holy Ghost did actually so convince the Jewish nation after the day of Pentecost, is clearly shown by the Acts of the Apostles. It was He who gave the humble fishermen of Galilee such grace and might in testifying of Christ, that their adversaries were put to silence. It was His reproving and convincing power which enabled them to "fill Jerusalem with their doctrine." Not a few of the nation, we know, were savingly convinced, like Paul, and "a great company of priests" became obedient to the faith. Myriads more, we have every reason to believe, were mentally convinced, if they had not courage to come out and take up the cross. The whole tone of the Jewish people towards the end of the Acts of the Apostles is unlike what it is at the beginning. A vast reproving and convincing influence even where not saving, seems to have gone over their minds. Surely this was partly what our Lord had in view in these verses when He said, "The Holy Ghost shall reprove and convince." For another thing, our Lord probably meant to foretell what the Holy Ghost would do for the whole of mankind, both Gentiles as well as Jews. He would reprove in every part of the earth the current ideas of men about sin, righteousness, judgment, and convince people of some far higher ideas on these points than they had before acknowledged. He would make men see more clearly the nature of sin, the need of righteousness, the certainty of judgment. In a word, He would insensibly be an Advocate and convincing Pleader for God throughout the whole world, and raise up a standard of morality, purity and knowledge, of which formerly men had no conception. That the Holy Ghost actually did so in every part of the earth, after the day of Pentecost, is a simple matter of fact. The unlearned and lowly Jews, whom He sent forth and strengthened to preach the Gospel after our Lord's ascension, "turned the world upside down," and in two or three centuries altered the habits, tastes, and practices of the whole civilized world. The power of the devil received a decided check. Even infidels dare not deny that the doctrines of Christianity had an enormous effect on men's ways, lives, and opinions, when they were first preached, and that there were no special graces or eloquence in the preachers that can account for it. In truth, the world was "reproved and convinced," in spite of itself; and even those who did not become believers became better men. Surely this also was partly what our Lord had in view when He said to His disciples, "When the Holy Ghost comes, He shall convince the world of sin, and righteousness, and judgment." Let us leave the whole passage, deep and difficult as it is, with a thankful remembrance of one comfortable promise which it contains. "The Spirit of truth," says our Lord to His weak and half-informed followers, "shall guide you into all truth." That promise was for our sakes, no doubt, as well as for theirs. Whatever we need to know for our present peace and sanctification, the Holy Ghost is ready to teach us. All truth in science, nature, and philosophy of course is not included in this promise. But into all spiritual truth that is really profitable, and that our minds can comprehend and bear, the Holy Spirit is ready and willing to guide us. Then let us never forget, in reading the Bible, to pray for the teaching of the Holy Ghost. We must not wonder if we find the Bible a dark and difficult book, if we do not regularly seek light from Him by whom it was first inspired. In this, as in many other things, "we have not because we ask not." ================== Notes— v8.—[And when He is come.] These words would be rendered more literally, "And He having come." Here, as in other places, we must remember that the "coming" of the Holy Ghost does not mean His coming for the first time into the world. He was in all the Old Testament saints, and no one ever believed or served God without His grace. Wherever there has been a true servant of God, there has been the Holy Ghost. The "coming" here mentioned means His coming down with larger power and influence on all mankind after the ascension of Christ, and specially on the day of Pentecost. From that day began an enormous extension of His influence and operations on human nature: an influence so much wider than it ever was before, that He is said to have "come." Light Foot remarks that "the Holy Spirit had absented Himself from the Jewish nation for four-hundred years!" Hence the phrase "come" had a special significance. [He will reprove...judgment.] This sentence is perhaps one of the most difficult in the whole of John's Gospel. Men will probably never agree about it entirely till the Lord comes. There is something in it which seems to baffle all interpreters. The commonest explanation is that which regards the passage as describing the ordinary operations of the Holy Ghost in saving God's people. It is He who convinces people that they are sinners; convinces them that they must be saved by Christ's righteousness, and not their own; and convinces them that there is a judgment to come. This interpretation is the one adopted by Alford and many others.—No doubt it contains truth, but it is not at all clear to me that it is the truth of the passage. It is open, in short, to grave objections, and, in common with some commentators, I cannot feel satisfied with it. For popular addresses this view may do pretty well. But, I venture to think, no man who sits down and calmly weighs the meaning of words, can fail to see that it is open to very serious objections. Inward conviction is certainly not the meaning of the word rendered "reprove." It is rather refutation by proofs, convicting by unanswerable argument as an advocate, that is meant. Believers and God's people are not said to be the subjects of the Spirit's reproving work. It is the "world" that is to be reproved; and this very world, in this last sermon, is continually put in contrast with Christ's people. Add to all this, that the latter part of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh verses can hardly be said to suit and square in with the verse we are considering. If our Lord had simply said, "The Spirit shall convince your hearers of their own sins, of my imputed righteousness, and of a day of judgment," it would have been plain enough. But unfortunately there are several things added which really do not chime in with this mode of interpretation. I repeat, that no intelligent Christian, of course, will think of denying that conviction of sin is a special and saving work of the Holy Ghost on the hearts of believers. But it does not therefore follow that it is the thing taught in this passage. It is truth, but not the truth of the text. I believe the meaning to be something of this kind.—"After the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost, the great Advocate of Me and my people, shall come into this world with such mighty power that He shall silence, convince, and stop the mouths of your enemies, and oblige them, however unwillingly, to think of Me and my cause very differently from what they think now. In particular, He shall convince them of their own sin, of my righteousness, and of the victory which I have won over Satan. He shall, in short, be a crushing Advocate whom the world shall not be able to resist or gainsay." That this was one effect of the Holy Ghost coming down on the day of Pentecost, appears so frequently in the Acts of the Apostles that it is needless to quote texts. It is clear from the whole narrative of the earlier portion of Acts, that after the day of Pentecost there was a peculiar, restraining, irresistible power accompanying the work of the Apostles, which the unbelieving Jews, in spite of all their numbers and influence, were unable to withstand. Nor was this work of the Holy Ghost confined to the Jews. Wherever the Apostles and their fellow-labourers went, the same convincing power accompanied them, and obliged even the heathen to acknowledge Christianity as a great fact, even when they did not believe. Pliny's famous letter to Trajan about the Christians, is a remarkable illustration of this. I prefer this interpretation to the one above mentioned, as held by Alford and most commentators, for two simple reasons. One is that it suits the language of the passage, and the other view does not. The other reason is that it harmonizes with the context. Our Lord is encouraging the disciples against the world by the presence of the Comforter. And one special part of the encouragement is, that the Comforter shall do for them the work of an advocate, by silencing, crushing, refuting, and convincing their enemies. After all, the enormous change which took place in the state of "the world" within a few centuries after Pentecost, is a strong proof to my own mind of the correctness of the view I advocate. About sin, Christ, and judgment, the opinions of men were completely transformed, even though men were unconverted. And who did this? The Holy Ghost. Nothing can account for the change but the miraculous interposition of the Holy Ghost.—I frankly confess that this view of the passage before us is not that of the vast majority of commentators. But in these matters I dare not call any man master, and must say what I think. Those who wish to see the view I maintain more fully argued out and supported, are advised to consult "Poole's Annotations," and Suicer's "Thesaurus" on the Greek word which we translate "reprove." Schleusner also seems to support the view. Scott remarks here, "It is worthy of notice that an immense proportion of the human race, since the pouring out of the Holy Spirit after our Lord's ascension, have been led to form such sentiments about sin, righteousness, and a future judgment, as the world up to that time had not the most remote conception of; so that a far higher standard of morals has been fixed throughout numerous nations than was at all thought of before." v9.—[Of sin...believe not...Me.] I think this verse means, "The Holy Ghost shall first and foremost convince the world concerning sin, by obliging my enemies to see, though too late, that in not believing Me they made an enormous mistake, and committed a great sin. He shall make them feel at last that in rejecting Me, they rejected One whom they ought to have believed." v10.—[Of righteousness...no more.] I think this verse means, "The Holy Ghost, secondly, shall convince the world concerning my righteousness, that I was a righteous Man, and not a deceiver. And this He will do after I have left the world, when the Jews can no longer see Me, and form any opinion of Me. I go to the Father, you know, and you will soon see me no more. But after I am gone the Holy Ghost will oblige my enemies to feel that I was a just and righteous Person, and was unjustly slain." Even the centurion who saw our Lord crucified, declared, "Certainly this was a righteous man." (Luke 23:47.) v11.—[Of judgment...judged.] I think this verse means, "The Holy Ghost, in the last place, shall convince the world concerning the judgment and overthrow of Satan's usurped power, by setting up a new kingdom everywhere, even my Church, by emptying the heathen temples of their worshippers, and by drying up the power of idolatry, and delivering vast portions of the world from its dominion." The "Prince of this world," of course means the devil. How great His power was over mankind before Christ came into the world, and how great a change Christ's death and resurrection produced in the general condition of mankind, are things which at this period of time we can hardly realize. The coming of the "kingdom of God," or "kingdom of heaven," was a reality 1800 years ago, of which we can now form little idea. The Holy Ghost produced a general conviction that a new order of things had begun, and that the old king and tyrant of the world was dethroned and stripped of much of his power. Such is the view that I take of this passage. I do not pretend to deny that there are difficulties about it. I only maintain that these difficulties are fewer than those which surround the common idea attached to the passage. Poole's "Annotations" perhaps throw more light on the passage than any commentary I have met with. But even he says things which appear to me not warranted by the words of the evangelist. v12.—[I have yet many things...you.] This clause seems to refer to the higher, fuller, deeper views of Christian truth which our Lord doubtless revealed to His disciples during the forty days between His resurrection and ascension, when He was continually "speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." The absurdity and unreasonableness of concluding from this text that there are many other truths which Christ after His resurrection revealed to the Apostles, but which are not recorded in Scripture, is well exposed by Ecolampadius and other Protestant commentators. [Ye cannot bear them now.] This word "bear" means literally "carry." It does not therefore signify things that the disciples could not "apprehend," but things that their minds were not yet strong enough to endure and digest. Do we not see here that there are steps and degrees in Christian attainment ? A man may be a good man, and yet not able to endure the whole truth. We must teach people as they are able to bear, and be patient. v13.—[Howbeit...He...guide...all truth.] Here our Lord gives another promise concerning the Holy Ghost. He shall guide disciples into all truth. He will lead and direct them into the full knowledge of all the doctrines of the Gospel, and all the truth they need to know. It is needless to say that "all truth" here does not mean all scientific truth. It applies specially to spiritual truth. This great promise does not appear to me to signify "inspiration," or the imparting of that power to write and teach infallibly which the Apostles possessed. I much prefer the view, that it is a wide promise belonging to the whole Church in every age. It means that special office of "teaching" by which the Spirit illuminates, guides, and informs the understandings of all believers. That the minds of true Christians are taught and enlightened in a manner wonderful to themselves as well as others, is a simple matter of Christian experience. That enlightenment is the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the first step in saving religion. At the same time we must never forget that the disciples received an immense increase of spiritual knowledge after the day of Pentecost, and saw everything in religion far more clearly than they did before. Alford observes, "No promise of universal knowledge, nor of infallibility, is hereby conveyed; but it is a promise to them and us, that the Holy Spirit shall teach and lead us, not as children under the tutors and governors of legal and imperfect knowledge, but as sons, making known to us all the truth of God. (Galatians 4:6.) It is worth notice that in the Greek it is literally, "guide into all THE truth;" as if it specially meant "the truth concerning Me." Poole remarks that the Greek word rendered "guide," is one of great emphasis, signifying not only a guide who will discover truth as the object of the understanding, but one who will bow the will to the doctrines of truth. [For...not speak...Himself...hear...speak.] Here begins a list of things said about the Holy Ghost, which our weak capacities can hardly take in. The clause before us seems meant to show the close and intimate union existing between the Spirit and the two other Persons in the blessed Trinity. "He shall not speak from Himself, independently of Me and my Father. He shall only speak such things as He shall hear from us." The phrases "speak" and "hear" are both accommodations to man's weakness. The Spirit does not literally "speak" or literally "hear." It must mean, "His teachings and guidings shall be those of One who is in the closest union with the Father and the Son." "Of Himself" does not mean "about Himself," but "from Himself." [He will show...things to come.] The second thing said about the Spirit, is that He will show "things to come." I can only suppose that this points to the prophetical revelation of the future of the Church which the Spirit was to impart to the disciples. He did so when He inspired Paul, Peter, Jude, and John to prophecy. The expression probably includes the destruction of Jerusalem, the removal of the Mosaic dispensation, the scattering of the Jews, the calling in of the Gentile Churches, and the whole history of their rise, progress, and final decay. v14.—[He...glorify Me.] The third thing said of the Spirit, is that He shall "glorify Christ." He shall continually teach, and lead, and guide disciples to make much of Christ. Any religious teaching which does not tend to exalt Christ, has a fatal defect about it. It cannot be from the Spirit. [He shall receive...mine...show you.] This is the fourth thing said of the Spirit in this place. He will take of the truth about Christ, and show it or reveal it to disciples. I can attach no other meaning to the phrase "mine." It is in the singular number,—"that thing which is mine,"—and I cannot see what it can mean but "truth concerning Me." Alford remarks, '' This verse is decisive against all additions and pretended revelations, subsequent to and beside Christ; it being the work of the Spirit to testify to the things of Christ, and not to anything new or beyond Him." v15.—[All things...Father...mine, etc.] The object of this deep verse seems to be to show the entire unity between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the revelation of truth made to man. "The Holy Spirit shall show you things concerning Me, and yet things at the same time concerning the Father, because all things that the Father hath are mine." Both this verse and the preceding one are strikingly calculated to humble a Bible reader, and make him feel how little he knows, at his very best, of the full meaning of some Scriptures. There are things in them which we must feel we do not comprehend. Beyond the great principle, that it is the special office of the Holy Spirit to glorify Christ, and to show disciples the whole truth concerning Christ, it is very hard to get. May not the clause, "All things that the Father hath are mine," be specially put in to prevent our supposing that there can be any real separation between the things of Christ and the things of the Father? It is like "I and my Father are One." "All mine are Thine, and Thine are mine."—"Think not," our Lord seems to say, "when I speak of the Spirit showing you 'my things,' that He will not show you the things of my Father. That would be impossible. There is so close an union between the Father and the Son, that the Spirit cannot show or teach the things of the one without the things of the other. In a word, He proceeds from the Father as well as from the Son." Not all Christ's sayings were understood by His disciples. We are told this distinctly in the passage we have now read.— "What is this that he saith? We cannot tell what he saith."— None ever spoke so plainly as Jesus. None were so thoroughly accustomed to His style of teaching as the Apostles. Yet even the Apostles did not always take in their Master's meaning. Surely we have no right to be surprised if we cannot interpret Christ's words. There are many depths in them which we have no line to fathom. But let us thank God that there are many sayings of our Lord recorded which no honest mind can fail to understand. Let us use diligently the light that we have, and not doubt that "to him that hath, more shall be given." We learn, for one thing, in these verses, that Christ's absence from the earth will be a time of sorrow to believers, but of joy to the world. It is written, "Ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice." To confine these words to the single point of Christ's approaching death and burial, appears a narrow view of their meaning. Like many of our Lord's sayings on the last evening of His earthly ministry, they seem to extend over the whole period of time between His first and second advents. Christ's personal absence must needs be a sorrow to all true-hearted believers. "The children of the bride-chamber cannot but fast when the bridegroom is taken from them." Faith is not sight. Hope is not certainty. Reading and hearing are not the same as beholding. Praying is not the same as speaking face to face. There is something, even in the hearts of the most eminent saints, that will never be fully satisfied so long as they are on earth and Christ is in heaven. So long as they dwell in a body of corruption, and see through a glass darkly,— so long as they behold creation groaning under the power of sin, and all things not put under Christ,— so long their happiness and peace must needs be incomplete. This is what Paul meant when he said, "We ourselves, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23.) Yet this same personal absence of Christ is no cause of sorrow to the children of this world. It was not sorrow to the unbelieving Jews, we may be sure. When Christ was condemned and crucified, they rejoiced and were glad. They thought that the hated reprover of their sins and false teaching was silenced forever.— It is not to the careless and the wicked of our day, we may be sure. The longer Christ keeps away from this earth, and lets them alone, the better will they be pleased. "We do not want this Christ to reign over us," is the feeling of the world. His absence causes them no pain. Their so-called happiness is complete without Him. All this may sound very painful and startling. But where is the thinking reader of the Bible who can deny that it is true? The world does not want Christ back again, and thinks that it does very well without Him. What a fearful waking up there will be by-and-by! We learn, for another thing in this verse, that Christ's personal return shall be a source of boundless joy to His believing people. It is written, "I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you." Once more we must take care that we do not narrow the meaning of these words by tying them down to our Lord's resurrection. They surely reach much further than this. The joy of the disciples when they saw Christ risen from the dead, was a joy soon obscured by His ascension and withdrawal into heaven. The true joy, the perfect joy, the joy that can never be taken away, will be the joy which Christ's people will feel when Christ returns the second time, at the end of this world. The second personal advent of Christ, to speak plainly, is the one grand object on which our Lord, both here and elsewhere, teaches all believers to fix their eyes. We ought to be always looking for and "loving His appearing," as the perfection of our happiness, and the consummation of all our hopes. (2 Peter 3:12; 2 Timothy 4:8.) That same Jesus who was taken up visibly into heaven, shall also come again visibly, even as He went. Let the eyes of our faith be always fixed on this coming. It is not enough that we look backward to the cross, and rejoice in Christ dying for our sins; and upwards to the right hand of God, and rejoice in Christ's interceding for every believer. We must do more than this. We must look forward to Christ's return from heaven to bless His people, and to wind up the work of redemption. Then, and then only, will the prayer of eighteen centuries receive its complete answer,— "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Well may our Lord say that in that day of resurrection and reunion our "hearts shall rejoice."— "When we awake up after His likeness we shall be satisfied." (Psalms 17:15.) We learn, lastly, in these verses, that while Christ is absent believers must ask much in prayer. It is written, "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in My name: ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." We may well believe that up to this time the disciples had never realized their Master's full dignity. They had certainly never understood that He was the one Mediator between God and man, in whose name and for whose sake they were to put up their prayers. Here they are distinctly told that henceforward they are to "ask in His name." Nor can we doubt that our Lord would have all His people, in every age, understand that the secret of comfort during His absence is to be instant in prayer. He would have us know that if we cannot see Him with our bodily eyes any longer, we can talk with Him, and through Him have special access to God. "Ask and ye shall receive," He proclaims to all His people in every age; "and your joy shall be full." Let the lesson sink down deeply into our hearts. Of all the list of Christian duties there is none to which there is such abounding encouragement, as prayer. It is a duty which concerns all. High and low, rich and poor, learned and unlearned,— all must pray. It is a duty for which all are accountable. All cannot read, or hear, or sing; but all who have the spirit of adoption can pray. Above all, it is a duty in which everything depends on the heart and motive within. Our words may be feeble and ill-chosen, and our language broken and ungrammatical, and unworthy to be written down. But if the heart be right, it matters not. He that sits in heaven can spell out the meaning of every petition sent up in the name of Jesus, and can make the asker know and feel that he receives. "If we know these things, happy are we if we do them." Let prayer in the name of Jesus be a daily habit with us every morning and evening of our lives. Keeping up that habit, we shall find strength for duty, comfort in trouble, guidance in perplexity, hope in sickness, and support in death. Faithful is He that promised, "Your joy shall be full;" and He will keep His word, if we ask in prayer. ================== Notes— v16.—[A little while, and ye shall, etc.] There is a difficulty in this verse which requires consideration. To what time does our Lord refer when He says, "a little while and ye shall not see Me," and "ye shall see Me"? There are two answers. (a) Some think, as Chrysostom, Cyril, and Hengstenberg, that our Lord only meant, "in a few hours I shall be removed by death, and buried, and then you will not see Me; and again after three days I shall rise again, and then you will see Me." (b) Others think, as Augustine, Maldonatus, and Wordsworth, that our Lord meant, "In a short time I shall leave the world, ascend up to heaven, and go to my Father, and you will see Me no more; and again, in comparatively short time, I shall return to the world at my second advent, and you will see Me again." I decidedly prefer the second of these interpretations. To explain the words, "Ye shall not see Me," and "Ye shall see Me," by our Lord's death and resurrection, seems to me a forced and unnatural interpretation. Moreover it completely fails to explain the words, "I go to the Father." Both here and all through the passage, I believe our Lord is speaking for the benefit of the whole Church until His coming again, and not merely for the benefit of the eleven apostles. The true sense is best seen by inverting the order of the words. "The time has arrived when I must leave the world, and go back again to my Father. The consequence is that in a little time you will no longer see Me with your bodily eyes, for I shall be in heaven and you on earth. But take comfort! In a little time I shall return again with power and great glory, and then you and all my believing people will see Me again." It is worth notice, in support of the view I maintain, that the expression in Greek, "a little while," is almost the same as in Hebrews 10:37, when the second advent is clearly spoken of. Moreover the expression, "I go," is distinctly applied in several places to our Lord's final departure from the world, and seldom, if ever, to our Lord's death on the cross. Alford thinks His meaning is manifold, and says, "[The words] 'Ye shall see Me' began to be fulfilled at the resurrection, then receive its main fulfilment at Pentecost, and shall have its final fulfilment at the return of our Lord." This strikes me as a very untenable view. It is curious that the first "Ye shall see" is in the present tense, and is an entirely different word to the second, which is a future. The first would be rendered literally, "Ye behold, or gaze upon Me." v17.—[Then said some, etc.] This whole verse shows how little the disciples realized or understood our Lord's meaning at present, when He spoke of His second advent. Yet when we consider how widely different are the meanings put on our Lord's words by Christians in this day, we can hardly feel surprised that eleven weak believers, like the apostles, could not take in the full sense of the words when they first heard them, the night before the crucifixion. v18.—[They said therefore...little while.] This sentence shows that it was the "time" mentioned— "a little while"— which perplexed the disciples. We may conjecture that they could not make out whether it meant "literally" a few days or hours, or figuratively a comparatively short time. And is not this precisely the point on which all students of unfulfilled prophecy disagree? The verse before us is curiously applicable to many a prophetical controversy. [We cannot tell...saith.] These words would be more literally rendered, "We do not know what He is speaking of." v19.—[Now Jesus knew...ask Him.] Here, as in other places, our Lord's perfect knowledge of the hearts and thoughts of all around Him is pointed out. The word "ask," we should carefully note, is literally "to ask questions about a thing." It is the same word that is used in John 16:23 : "at that day ye shall ask Me nothing." [And said, etc.] The word rendered, "Do ye inquire among yourselves of that?" would be more literally, "Concerning this, do ye seek with each other?" v20.—[Verily...say unto you.] It should be observed in this verse that our Lord gives no reply to the inquiry of the disciples. He does not tell them what He meant by saying "a little while." Questions about times and dates are rarely answered in Scripture. Our attention is rather turned to practical things. [Ye shall weep and lament, etc.] I believe, with Augustine and Bede, that the whole verse is meant to be a general description of the state of things between the first and second advents of Christ. "During my absence from the world after my ascension, you, my beloved disciples, and all believers after you, shall have many reasons to lament and mourn, like a bride separate from her husband, while the wicked world around you shall rejoice in my absence, and not wish to see Me return. During this long weary interval, you and all believers after you shall often have sorrow and tribulation; but at last, when I come again, your sorrow shall be turned into joy." In support of this view I advise the reader to study Matthew 9:15. The idea in each place seems the same. (Compare also Isaiah 65:14.) Poole remarks, "The time of this life is the worldling's hour, while it is for the most part the power of darkness to all who love and fear God. But as the worldling's joy shall at last be turned into sorrow, so the godly man's sorrow shall be turned into joy." (Isaiah 50:11; Matthew 25:23.) The interpretation of Chrysostom, Cyril, and others, which makes the whole verse fulfilled by the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord, appears to me very unsatisfactory. It hardly affords time for the weeping and rejoicing which is here described. Nor is it quite clear that the day during which our Lord lay in the grave was a day of rejoicing to His enemies, if we may judge by their anxiety to prevent, if possible, His resurrection from the dead. v21.—[A woman, etc.] This verse is an illustration of the whole state of the Church between the first and second advents of Christ. It was to be a time of pain, anxiety, and desire for deliverance, from which the only cessation would be at the personal return of Christ. We are distinctly told in Romans 8:22, that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain until now." It is the normal state of things while Christ is absent. The second coming of the second Adam can alone restore joy to the world. The Church in Revelation 12:2, is compared to a woman "travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered." The wars and disturbances of the world are called in Matthew 24:8, the beginning of "sorrows;" and the word "sorrows" there means literally "the pains of a travailing woman." The whole idea of the verse seems to be that the interval between Christ's first and second advent will be, to the Church, a period of pain, sorrow, and anxiety, like the state of a woman expecting her delivery,— that the end of this period will be the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ the second time,— and that when our Lord does come the second time, the joy of the true Church will be so great, that the former sorrow and tribulation will be comparatively forgotten. The joy of seeing Christ will swallow up the afflictions of His absence. (Compare Romans 8:18-22; 2 Corinthians 4:17.) v22.—[And ye now therefore, etc.] I apply to this verse the same principle of interpretation that I have applied to the preceding ones. I think our Lord is speaking of the sorrow and pain which believers would feel during the interval between His first and second advent. "You are now entering on a period of pain, sorrow, and tribulation. But fear not. It shall not be for ever. I will return and see you again. In that day your heart shall be filled and satisfied with joy, a joy which no one can ever take from you, a joy which shall be for ever." I cannot bring myself to believe that this "see you again" can possibly refer to the short period of forty days between the resurrection and the ascension! Above all, I feel strongly that the words, "Your joy no man taketh from you," could certainly not be applied to the times of trouble, and tribulation, and persecution even unto death, which the primitive Church passed through in the beginning of its existence. The sensible joy of the primitive Church, beyond doubt, was often taken away, as when Stephen was martyred, James slain with the sword, and Peter put in prison. The second coming of Christ is the only time of universal and unbroken joy to which believers can look forward. Now we are in the wilderness, and our sorrowless home is yet to be reached. Then, and then only, will tears be wiped from all eyes. v23.—[And in that day...ask...nothing.] In the first part of this verse I believe, with Augustine, that the "day" spoken of is the day of our Lord's second advent. The "asking" is asking questions, or making inquiries, such as the disciples had wanted to make in John 16:19. "They were desirous to ask Him." The Greek word is the same, and quite different from the word rendered "ask" in the latter part of this verse. The meaning of the sentence is, "In the day of my second advent you will not need to ask Me any questions. You will then fully understand the meaning of many things which you do not understand now." The far superior light which believers will enjoy in the day of Christ's second coming, is the chief point of the promise, as in 1 Corinthians 13:12. Cyril and Chrysostom, however, apply "that day" to our Lord's resurrection and the forty days following it. [Verily, verily...whatsoever...ask...give it you.] In this portion of the verse our Lord renews and repeats His former promise about prayer. "Until that day when I come again, I solemnly declare that whatsoever things you shall ask in prayer from the Father in my name, He will give them to you." The word "ask" in the Greek, in the latter part of this verse, is entirely different from the word rendered "ask" in the former part. Here it signifies seeking or petitioning in prayer. There it meant asking questions. It is worth noticing here how very frequent and full are the encouragements to prayer which our Lord holds out in the Gospels. The "whatsoever" of the text must of course be limited to whatsoever things are really for God's glory, the disciples' good, and the interests of Christ's cause in the world. v24.—[Hitherto...nothing in my name.] This sentence means that up to this time the disciples had not prayed for anything through the name and mediation of Christ. They had followed Him as a teacher, looked up to Him as a master, loved Him as a friend, believed Him as the Messiah predicted by the prophets. But they had not fully realized that He was the one Mediator between God and man, through whom alone God's mercy could come down to sinners, and sinful creatures could draw near to God. They were now to learn that their Master was one far higher than any prophet, yea, even than Moses himself. Daniel's prayer, "Shine on Thy sanctuary for the Lord's sake," is almost the only instance of a prayer in Messiah's name in the Old Testament. (Daniel 9:17.) [Ask...receive...joy...full.] This sentence means, "From henceforth begin the practice of asking everything in my name and through my mediation. Ask fully and confidently, and you shall receive fully and abundantly. So asking, you shall find the joy and comfort of your own souls enlarged and filled up." John Gerhard here remarks: "The benefit of prayer is so great that it cannot be expressed!— Prayer is the dove which, when sent out, returns again, bringing with it the olive-leaf, namely peace of heart. Prayer is the golden chain which God holds fast, and lets not go until He blesses. Prayer is the Moses' rod, which brings forth the water of consolation out of the rock of salvation. Prayer is Samson's jaw-bone, which smites down our enemies. Prayer is David's harp, before which the evil spirit flies. Prayer is the key to heaven's treasures." The Greek word rendered "full" means literally "filled up," being the perfect participle of the verb "to fill or fulfil." The sentence teaches us that the joy and happiness of believers admit of degrees, and may be fuller at one time than at another. It also teaches that the joy of a believer depends much on his fervency and earnestness in prayer. He that prays little and coldly must not expect to know much of "joy and peace in believing." We should not fail to observe how prayer is set before believers here as a plain duty, in the imperative mood, and also how desirous our Lord is that His people should be rejoicing Christians even now in the midst of a bad world. That religion which makes people melancholy and miserable and wretched-looking, is a very low type of Christianity, and far below the standard of Him who wished "joy to be full." (Compare 1 John 1:4.) The passage we have now read is a very remarkable portion of Scripture, for two reasons. On the one hand, it forms a suitable conclusion to our Lord's long parting address to His disciples. It was meet and right that such a solemn sermon should have a solemn ending. On the other hand it contains the most general and unanimous profession of belief that we ever find the Apostles making:— "Now are we sure that Thou knowest all things: . . . by this we believe that Thou camest forth from God." That there are things hard to be understood in the passage it would be useless to deny. But there lie on its surface three plain and profitable lessons, to which we may usefully confine our attention. We learn, for one thing, that clear knowledge of God the Father is one of the foundations of the Christian religion. Our Lord says to His disciples, "The time cometh when I shall show you plainly of the Father." He does not say, we should mark, "I will show you plainly about myself." It is the Father whom He promises to show. The wisdom of this remarkable saying is very deep. There are few subjects of which men know so little in reality as the character and attributes of God the Father. It is not for nothing that it is written, "No man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal Him." (Matthew 11:27.) "The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (John 1:18.) Thousands fancy that they know the Father because they think of Him as great, and almighty, and all-hearing, and wise, and eternal, but they think no further. To think of Him as just and yet the justifier of the sinner who believes in Jesus,— as the God who sent His Son to suffer and die,— as God in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself,— as God specially well-pleased with the atoning sacrifice of His Son, whereby His law is honored;— to think of God the Father in this way is not given to most men. No wonder that our Master says, "I will show you plainly of the Father." Let it be part of our daily prayers, that we may know more of "the only true God," as well as of Jesus Christ whom He has sent. Let us beware alike of the mistakes which some make, who speak of God as if there was no Christ; and of the mistakes which others make, who speak of Christ as if there was no God. Let us seek to know all three Persons in the blessed Trinity, and give to each One the honor due to him. Let us lay hold firmly of the great truth, that the Gospel of our salvation is the result of the eternal counsels of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and that we are as thoroughly debtors to the love of the Father, as to the love of the Spirit, or the love of the Son. No one has learned of Christ so deeply as the man who is ever drawing nearer to the Father through the Son,— ever feeling more childlike confidence in Him,— and ever understanding more thoroughly that in Christ, God is not an angry judge, but a loving Father and Friend. We learn, for another thing, in this passage, that our Lord Jesus Christ makes much of a little grace, and speaks kindly of those who have it. We see Him saying to the disciples: "The Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved Me, and have believed that I came out from God." How weak was the faith and love of the Apostles! How soon, in a very few hours, they were buried under a cloud of unbelief and cowardice! These very men whom Jesus commends for loving and believing, before the morning sun arose, forsook Him and fled. Yet, weak as their graces were, they were real and true and genuine. They were graces which hundreds of learned priests and scribes and Pharisees never attained, and, not attaining, died miserably in their sins. Let us take great comfort in this blessed truth. The Savior of sinners will not cast off them that believe in Him, because they are babes in faith and knowledge. He will not break the bruised reed or quench the smoking flax. He can see reality under much infirmity, and where He sees it, He is graciously pleased. The followers of such a Savior may well be bold and confident. They have a Friend who despises not the least member of His flock, and casts out none who come to Him, however weak and feeble, if they are only true. We learn, for another thing, in this passage, that the best Christians know but little of their own hearts. We see the disciples professing loudly, "Now Thou speakest plainly,— now we are sure,— now we believe." Brave words these! And yet the very men that spoke them, in a very short time were scattered like timid sheep, and left their Master alone. We need not doubt that the profession of the eleven was real and sincere. They honestly meant what they said. But they did not know themselves. They did not know what they were capable of doing under the pressure of the fear of man and of strong temptation. They had not rightly estimated the weakness of the flesh, the power of the devil, the feebleness of their own resolutions, the shallowness of their own faith. All this they had yet to learn by painful experience. Like young recruits, they had yet to learn that it is one thing to know the soldier's drill and wear the uniform, and quite another thing to be steadfast in the day of battle. Let us mark these things, and learn wisdom. The true secret of spiritual strength is self-distrust and deep humility. "When I am weak," said a great Christian, "then am I strong." (2 Corinthians 12:10.) None of us, perhaps, have the least idea how much we might fall if placed suddenly under the influence of strong temptation. Happy is he who never forgets the words, "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall;" and, remembering our Lord's disciples, prays daily: "Hold Thou me up and then I shall be safe." We learn, lastly, from this passage, that Christ is the true source of peace. We read that our Lord winds up all His discourse with these soothing words: "These things have I spoken unto you, that ye might have peace." The end and scope of His parting address, He would have us know, is to draw us nearer to Himself as the only fountain of comfort. He does not tell us that we shall have no trouble in the world. He holds out no promise of freedom from tribulation, while we are in the body. But He bids us rest in the thought that He has fought our battle and won a victory for us. Though tried, and troubled, and vexed with things here below, we shall not be destroyed. "Be of good cheer," is His parting charge: "Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." Let us lean back our souls on these comfortable words, and take courage. The storms of trial and persecution may sometimes beat heavily on us; but let them only drive us closer to Christ. The sorrows, and losses, and crosses, and disappointments of our life may often make us feel sorely cast down; but let them only make us tighten our hold on Christ. Armed with this very promise let us, under every cross, come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. Let us often say to our souls, "Why art thou cast down, and why art thou disquieted?" And let us often say to our gracious Master,— "Lord, didst not Thou say, Be of good cheer? Lord, do as Thou hast said, and cheer us to the end." ================== Notes— v25.—[These things...proverbs.] Our Lord seems here to begin winding up and concluding His discourse. The expression "these things," seems to me to apply to all that He had been saying since Judas went out, and He was alone with the eleven. "All these things I have been saying to you in language which you have not been able fully to understand, insomuch that I seem to have been speaking to you in parables or proverbs." The Greek word rendered "proverb" is only used five times in the New Testament, and in John 10:6 is translated parable. Besser observes here, "From the very first words of our Lord's farewell discourse,— 'In my Father's house are many mansions,'— up to the words concerning the travailing woman, the heavenly purport of the discourse is enwrapped in various similes and parables." Do we not learn here that ministers must not refrain from telling their hearers many truths, which at the time they do not fully comprehend, in the hope that they will seek more knowledge, and comprehend afterwards the meaning of the things taught? [But the time cometh...Father.] I believe the "time" here mentioned must be the time between our Lord's resurrection and ascension, the great forty days when He taught the eleven disciples more fully than He had taught them before, and spoke more openly of the things of His Father.— I say this with diffidence. But I can see no other time to which our Lord could refer excepting this. It is evidently some personal instruction that He means, and not instruction by the invisible agency of the Holy Ghost. "The time is very close at hand, when my sacrifice on the cross having been accomplished, and my resurrection having taken place, I will show you openly and plainly the things concerning my Father, who I am, and what my relation to Him, and will no longer use parables and figures to convey my meaning." The promise MAY possibly include the continual teaching of the Holy Spirit, which our Lord would give His disciples after His ascension; but the language seems rather to point to direct teaching from our Lord's own mouth. Moreover, it is an "hour" that cometh, in the Greek, and not a continuous period of time. So in John 16:32, "the hour" means a time close at hand. v26.—[At that day...ask in my name.] I believe this sentence must mean, "In the day following my resurrection, when the full nature of my mission and office is at last understood, you will begin to pray and ask in my name. Hitherto you have not done it. When I have risen from the dead, and opened your understandings, you will begin to do it." I see insuperable objection to any other view. The "day" spoken of cannot be the day of Christ's second advent, because prayer will not be needed then. Nor yet can it be the whole period of time between Christ's first and second advent, because the passage which it is here bound up with belongs specially to the Apostles. (See John 16:27.) There remains, in my judgment, no reasonable explanation except the one already given. [And I say not...pray...Father...you.] The meaning of this sentence seems to be, "It is not necessary to say that I will pray the Father to hear you and grant your requests. Not only shall I of course do this, but my Father also will willingly hear your prayer." This is the most natural meaning of the passage, in my judgment. It is singular that the Greek word rendered "pray" at the end of the verse, is the same that is used in John 16:23 to signify "ask questions," or "make inquiry." But it is worth notice that the word seems specially used when our Lord is described as "praying" to the Father. (See John 17:9; John 17:20.) v27.—[For the Father Himself, etc.] This verse is a continuation of the encouragement contained in the verse before. "You need not doubt the Father doing for you all that you ask in my name, because He loveth you for having loved Me, and believed my divine mission. He loves all who love Me, and believe on Me." (See John 14:23.) Anton paraphrases the verse, "Ye need not so think of my intercession as if the Father were not Himself well disposed, but must first be coerced into kindness. No! He Himself loveth you, and Himself ordained my intercession." We should notice here how graciously our Lord acknowledges the grace there was in the disciples, with all their weakness. When myriads of Jews regarded Jesus as an impostor, the eleven loved Him and believed in Him. Jesus never forgets to honour true grace, however much it may be mingled with infirmity. v28.—[I came forth, etc.] This verse seems a farewell summary of the true nature of our Lord's office and mission. It grows out of the last clause of the preceding verse. "You have believed that I came out from God. In so believing you have done well, for so it is. For the last time I repeat that my mission is divine. I came forth from the Father, and came into the world to be man's Redeemer; and now, my work being finished, I am about to leave the world, and to go back again to my Father." This deep sentence contains more than at first sight appears. It points backward to our Lord's persecution; it points forward to His resurrection and ascension into glory. Augustine, quoted by Burgon, remarks, "When Christ came forth from the Father, He so came into the world as never to leave the Father; and He so left the world and went unto the Father as never to leave the world." v29.—[His disciples said, etc.] The words of the disciples seem to be a reference to our Lord's statement in the twenty-fifth verse, that "the time was coming when He would no more speak in proverbs, but show them plainly concerning the Father." The eleven appear to catch at that promise. "Even now Thou art speaking to us more plainly than we have ever heard Thee speaking before, and not in figurative language." v30.—[Now are we sure, etc.] This is a peculiar verse. It is hard to see what there was in our Lord's statement in John 16:28, to carry such conviction to the minds of the eleven, and to make them see things about their Master so much more clearly than they had seen them before. But the precise reason why words affect men's minds, and lay hold on their attention at one time and not at another, is a deep mystery, and hard to explain. The very same truths which a man hears from one mouth and is utterly unimpressed, come home to him with such power from another mouth, that he will declare he never heard them before! Nay, more: the very same speaker who is heard without attention one day, is heard another day teaching the very same things with the deepest interest, by the same hearers, and they will tell you they never heard them before! The words, "We are sure," are literally, "We know." They mean, "We know now that Thou knowest all things concerning Thyself, Thy mission, and the Father." The words, "Thou needest not that any man should ask Thee," mean, "Thou hast told us so plainly who and what Thou art, that there is no need for any one to ask Thee questions, or seek further explanation." The words, "By this we believe," must mean, "We are convinced and persuaded by the statement Thou hast just made," in John 16:28. v31.—[Jesus answered...now believe.] In this verse our Lord warns the eleven of their self-ignorance. They thought they believed. They did not doubt their own faith. Let them not be too confident. They would soon find they had an evil root of unbelief within. Never do we find our Lord flattering His disciples. Warnings against self-confidence need to be continually pressed on believers. Nothing is so deceptive as feeling and excitement in religion. We know not the weakness of our hearts. Alford thinks that "do ye now believe," should not be rendered as a question, but as an affirmation. "You now believe, I know." The Greek admits of either view. I prefer the question. v32.—[Behold the hour...leave Me alone.] In this sentence our Lord reveals to His confident hearers, the amazing fact that they, even they, would in a very short time forsake Him, desert Him, run away, and fail in faith altogether. "Behold!" He begins, to denote how wonderful it was, "the hour cometh, yea, is now come. This very night, before the sun rises, the thing is immediately going to take place. Ye shall be scattered, like sheep fleeing from a wolf, one running one way and another another, every man going off to his own things, his own friends, or his own house, or his own place of refuge. Ye shall leave Me alone. You will actually allow Me to be taken off by myself as a prisoner to the high priests and to Pontius Pilate, and not so much as one of you will stand by Me." How little the best of believers know of their own hearts, or understand how they may behave in times of trial! If any men were ever fully and fairly warned of their coming failure, the disciples were. We can only suppose that they did not understand our Lord, or did not realize the magnitude of the trial coming on them, or fancied that He would work some miracle at the last moment, for His deliverance. The Greek phrase rendered "His own," means literally, "His own things." It may either be "His own business," or as the margin renders it, "His own home." [And yet...not alone...with Me.] In this teaching and touching sentence, our Lord reminds His disciples that their desertion would not deprive Him of all comfort. "And yet, when you are scattered, and have left Me, I am not entirely alone, because the Father is always with Me." We need not doubt that one great end of the sentence was to teach the disciples where they must look themselves in their own future trials. They must never forget that God the Father would always be near them and with them, even in the darkest times. A sense of God's presence is one great source of the comfort of believers. The last promise in Matthew, before the ascension, was, "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matthew 28:20.) John Huss, the famous martyr, who was burned at Constance, is said to have drawn special comfort from this passage, during the lonely imprisonment which preceded his death. v33.—[These things...peace.] In this concluding verse our Lord sums up the reasons why He has spoken the things contained in this whole discourse. "All these things I have spoken for this one great end,— that you may have inward peace by resting your souls on Me, and keeping up close communion with Me." It is one great secret of comfort in our religion to draw all our consolation from Christ, and live on Him. "He is our peace." (Ephesians 2:14.) [In the world...tribulation.] Here our Lord tells the eleven, plainly and honestly, that they must expect trouble and persecution from the world. He does not conceal that the way to heaven is not smooth and strewed with flowers. On the contrary, "all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (2 Timothy 3:12.) To keep back from young beginners in religion the cross and the battle, is not teaching as Christ taught. [But be...good cheer...overcome...world.] Here our Lord winds up all by bidding the disciples take courage, cheer up, be confident, and go forward without fear. The world in which they lived was a vanquished enemy. He, their Master, had "overcome the world." This means, I believe, not merely that He had given them an example of successful fighting by overcoming the fear of the world and the flattery of the world, but something far more important. He had overcome the Prince of this world, and was just about to win His final victory over him on the cross. Hence His disciples must remember that they were contending with an enemy already sorely beaten. "Ye need not fear the world, because I am just leading captive its King, and about to triumph over him on the cross." Luther, quoted by Besser, here remarks, "Thus is the 'goodnight' said, and the hand shaken. But very forcibly does He conclude with that very thing around which His whole discourse has turned. Let not your heart be troubled. Be of good cheer." No devout commentator, I think, can leave this wonderful chapter without deeply feeling how little we understand of the depths of Scripture. There are many words and sentences in it about which we can only give conjectures, and must admit our inability to speak positively. Nowhere in Scripture, I must honestly confess, do commentators appear to me to contribute so little light to the text, as in their interpretation of this chapter. THESE verses begin one of the most wonderful chapters in the Bible. It is a chapter in which we see our Lord Jesus Christ addressing a long prayer to God the Father. It is wonderful as a specimen of the communion that was ever kept up between the Father and the Son, during the period of the Son's ministry on earth.— It is wonderful as a pattern of the intercession which the Son, as an High Priest, is ever carrying on for us in heaven.— Not least it is wonderful as an example of the sort of things that believers should mention in prayer. What Christ asks for His people, His people should ask for themselves. It has been well and truly said by an old divine, that "the best and fullest sermon ever preached was followed by the best of prayers." It is needless to say that the chapter before us contains many deep things. It could hardly be otherwise. He that reads the words spoken by one Person of the blessed Trinity to another Person, by the Son to the Father, must surely be prepared to find much that he cannot fully understand, much that he has no line to fathom. There are sentences, words, and expressions, in the twenty-six verses of this chapter, which no one probably has ever unfolded completely. We have not minds to do it, or to understand the matters it contains, if we could. But there are great truths in the chapter which stand out clearly and plainly on its face, and to these truths we shall do well to direct our best attention. We should notice, firstly, in these verses, what a glorious account they contain of our Lord Jesus Christ's office and dignity. We read that the Father has "given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life." The keys of heaven are in Christ's hands. The salvation of every soul of mankind is at His disposal.— We read, furthermore, that "it is life eternal to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent." The mere knowledge of God is not sufficient, and saves none. We must know the Son as well as the Father. God known without Christ, is a Being whom we can only fear, and dare not approach. It is "God in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself," who alone can give to the soul life and peace.— We read, furthermore, that Christ "has finished the work which the Father gave Him to do." He has finished the work of redemption, and wrought out a perfect righteousness for His people. Unlike the first Adam, who failed to do God's will and brought sin into the world, the second Adam has done all, and left nothing undone that He came to do.— Finally, we read that Christ "had glory with the Father before the world was." Unlike Moses and David, He existed from all eternity, long before He came into the world; and He shared glory with the Father, before He was made flesh and born of the virgin Mary. Each of these marvelous sayings contains matter which our weak minds have not power fully to comprehend. We must be content to admire and reverence what we cannot thoroughly grasp and explain. But one thing is abundantly clear: sayings like these can only be used of one who is very God. To no patriarch, or prophet, or king, or apostle, is any such language ever applied in the Bible. It belongs to none but God. For ever let us thank God that the hope of a Christian rests on such a solid foundation as a Divine Savior. He to whom we are commanded to flee for pardon, and in whom we are bid to rest for peace, is God as well as man. To all who really think about their souls, and are not careless and worldly, the thought is full of comfort. Such people know and feel that great sinners need a great Savior, and that no mere human redeemer would meet their wants. Then let them rejoice in Christ, and lean back confidently on Him. Christ has all power, and is able to save to the uttermost, because Christ is divine. Office, power, and pre-existence, all combine to prove that He is God. We should notice, secondly, in these verses, what a gracious account they contain of our Lord Jesus Christ's disciples. We find our Lord Himself saying of them, "They have kept Thy Word,— they have known that all things Thou hast given Me are of Thee,— they have received Thy words,— they have known surely that I came out from Thee,— they have believed that Thou didst send Me." These are wonderful words when we consider the character of the eleven men to whom they were applied. How weak was their faith! How slender their knowledge! How shallow their spiritual attainments! How faint their hearts in the hour of danger! Yet a very little time after Jesus spoke these words they all forsook Him and fled, and one of them denied Him three times with an oath. No one, in short, can read the four Gospels with attention, and fail to see that never had a great master such weak servants as Jesus had in the eleven apostles. Yet these very weak servants were the men of whom the gracious Head of the Church speaks here in high and honorable terms. The lesson before us is full of comfort and instruction. It is evident that Jesus sees far more in His believing people than they see in themselves, or than others see in them. The least degree of faith is very precious in His sight. Though it be no bigger than a grain of mustard seed, it is a plant of heavenly growth, and makes a boundless difference between the possessor of it and the man of the world. Wherever the gracious Savior of sinners sees true faith in Himself, however feeble, He looks with compassion on many infirmities, and passes by many defects. It was even so with the eleven apostles. They were weak and unstable as water; but they believed and loved their Master when millions refused to own Him. And the language of Him who declared that a cup of cold water given in the name of a disciple should not lose its reward, shows clearly that their constancy was not forgotten. The true servant of God should mark well the feature in Christ's character which is here brought out, and rest his soul upon it. The best among us must often see in himself a vast amount of defects and infirmities, and must feel ashamed of his poor attainments in religion. But do we simply believe in Jesus? Do we cling to Him, and roll all our burdens on Him? Can we say with sincerity and truth, as Peter said afterwards, "Lord, Thou knowest all things: Thou knowest that I love Thee"? Then let us take comfort in the words of Christ before us, and not give way to despondency. The Lord Jesus did not despise the eleven because of their feebleness, but bore with them and saved them to the end, because they believed. And He never changes. What He did for them, He will do for us. ================== Notes— v1.—[These words spake Jesus.] The chapter we have now begun is the most remarkable in the Bible. It stands alone, and there is nothing like it. A few introductory remarks will not be out of place. Henry remarks that this was a prayer after a sermon, a prayer after sacrament, a family prayer, a parting prayer, a prayer before a sacrifice, a prayer which was a specimen of Christ's intercession. We have here the only long prayer of the Lord Jesus, which the Holy Ghost has thought good to record for our learning. That He often prayed we know well; but this is the only prayer reported. We have many of His sermons, parables, and conversations; but only this prayer. We have here the prayer of one who spake as never man spake, and prayed as never man prayed,— the prayer of the second Person in the Trinity to the Father: the prayer of one whose office it is, as our High Priest, to make intercession for His people. We have a prayer offered up by the Lord Jesus on a specially interesting occasion,— just after the Lord's Supper,— just after a most striking discourse,— just before His betrayal and crucifixion,— just before the disciples forsook Him and fled,— just at the end of His earthly ministry. We have here a prayer which is singularly full of deep and profound expressions; so deep, indeed, that we have no line to fathom them. The wisest Christian will always confess that there are things here which he cannot fully explain. The Bible reader who attaches no weight to such considerations as these must be in a very strange state of mind. Augustine remarks, "The prayer which Christ made for us, He hath also made known to us. Being so great a Master, not only what He saith in discoursing to the disciples, but also what He saith to the Father in praying for them, is their edification." Calvin remarks, "Doctrine has no power, unless efficacy is imparted to it from above. Christ holds out an example to teachers, not to employ themselves only in sowing the Word, but by mingling prayers with it, to implore the assistance of God, that His blessing may render their labour fruitful." Bullinger remarks that it was the duty of the Jewish priest to pray for the people, as well as to offer sacrifice for them. About the place where this prayer was offered we know nothing certain. Some, as Alford, have conjectured that it was in the upper room where the Lord's Supper was held. This however seems inconsistent with "Arise, let us go hence." (John 14:31.) It seems more likely that it was prayed in some quiet place outside the walls, before our Lord "crossed the brook Cedron." (John 18:1.) One thing at least is almost certain. It is a totally different prayer from that which our Lord prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, although Rupertus asserts it was the same! About the hearers of this prayer, there seems no reason to doubt that all the eleven apostles were present, and all heard it. All heard the discourses of the last three chapters, and I cannot see why all should not have heard the concluding prayer. About the general plan and order and arrangement of the prayer, I decline to express any opinion, thinking it more reverent not to define too closely such a matter. We can all see at a glance that our Lord prays about Himself, prays about the disciples, and prays about those who were after to be disciples. But it is best to pause here, and not to dissect and analyze and systematize too minutely such a prayer. One thing only may be remarked, and that is, the singular frequency with which "the world" is mentioned. The phrase occurs no less than nineteen times. I conclude these introductory observations by advising all who wish to study thoroughly this wonderful chapter of Scripture, to consult, if they can, the following works specially devoted to the elucidation of it: viz., "Manton's Sermons on Seventeenth John," 400 folio pages; "George Newton's Exposition of Seventeenth John," 560 pages folio; and "Burgess's Expository Sermons on Seventeenth John," 700 pages folio. These three books, having been written by Puritans 200 years ago, are ignored by some and despised by others. I simply venture the remark, that He who cares to examine them will find that they richly repay perusal. Manton's work especially will bear a comparison with anything written on this chapter since his days. It is curious that the other prayer, commonly called the "Lord's Prayer," has been frequently made the subject of books and expositions, while this much larger "prayer" has been comparatively little handled. Melancthon says, "There is no voice which has ever been heard, either in heaven or earth, more exalted, more holy, more fruitful, more sublime, than this prayer." Luther says, "In proportion as this prayer sounds plain and simple, it is in reality deep, rich, and wide, that which none can fathom." [And lifted up His eyes to heaven.] This sentence shows that bodily gestures in prayer and worship of God are not altogether to be overlooked as unmeaning. There is a decent and reverent manner and gesture which suits the action of addressing God. It also seems clearly to show that the prayer was prayed before witnesses. John writes as one describing what he saw and heard. It is perhaps too much to say that the expression proves the prayer to have been in the open air. A person may look upward and heavenward even in a room. Yet it certainly rather increases the probability that our Lord was in the open air. Calvin says, "If we desire to imitate Christ, we must take care that our outward gestures do not express more than is in our mind, but that inward feeling shall direct the eyes, the hands, the tongue, and everything about us." Newton observes that gesture and demeanour in God's worship, though not everything, are something. [And said, Father, the hour is come.] The "hour" here named is the hour appointed in God's eternal counsels for the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and the final accomplishment of His atonement. That time, which had been promised by God, and expected by saints for 4000 years, ever since Adam's fall, had at length arrived; and the seed of the woman was actually about to bruise the serpent's head, by dying as man's Substitute and Redeemer. Up to this night "the hour was not yet come" (John 7:30; John 8:20); and till it had come, our Lord's enemies could not hurt Him. Now, at last, the hour had come, and the Sacrifice was ready. Augustine says here, "Time did not force Christ to die, but Christ chose a time to die. So also the time at which He was born of the virgin He settled with the Father, of whom He was begotten without time." Let us remember, though in a far lower sense, that believers are all immortal till their hour is come; and till then they are safe, and cannot be harmed by death. Let us note how our Lord addresses God as "Father." In a lower sense we may do the same, if we have the Spirit of adoption, and are His children in Christ. The Lord's prayer teaches us to do so. It is worth notice that our Lord uses the phrase "Father" six times in this one prayer. [Glorify Thy Son...glorify Thee.] I think the meaning of this sentence must be this: "Give glory to Thy Son, by carrying Him through the cross and the grave, to a triumphant completion of the work He came to do, and by placing Him at Thy right hand, and highly exalting Him above every name that is named. Do this, in order that He may glorify Thee and Thy attributes. Do this, that He may bring fresh glory to Thy holiness, and justice, and mercy, and faithfulness, and prove to the world that Thou art a just God, a holy God, a merciful God, and a God that keepeth His word. My vicarious death and my resurrection will prove this, and bring glory to Thee. Finish the mighty work. Glorify Me, and in so doing glorify Thyself. Finish Thy work, not least, that Thy Son may glorify Thee by bringing many redeemed souls to heaven, to the glory of Thy grace." Stier remarks, "These words prove the Son is equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead. What creature could stand before his Creator, and say, 'Glorify Me, that I may glorify Thee'?" The glory of God and His attributes is the grand end of all creation, and of all God's arrangements and providences. Nothing brings such glory to God as the completion of the redeeming work of Christ, by His death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. Our Lord seems to me to ask that His death may at once take place, that He through death may be taken up to glory, and that there the justice, holiness, mercy, and faithfulness of the Father may be glorified and exhibited to all creation, and many souls be at once saved and glorify the Divine wisdom and power. Augustine remarks, "Some take the Father's glorifying the Son to consist in this,— that He spared Him not, but delivered Him up for us all. But if He be said to be glorified by passion, how much more by resurrection? For in the passion it is more His humility than His glory that is shown forth, as the Apostle says in Philippians 2:7-11." v2.—[As Thou hast given Him power, etc.] The Greek of part of this verse is peculiar, as it contains a nominative absolute; and a literal translation seems impossible. It would be, "That with regard to all that body or thing which Thou hast given Him, He should give eternal life to them." There seems a distinction between the whole body and the particular individual members. The body is given to Christ, in the mass, from all eternity. The members of that body are called in time, separately and one by one, and eternal life given to them. There certainly seems a connection between this verse and the concluding clause of the preceding verse. "Let Thy Son glorify Thee by saving souls, even as Thou hast appointed He should do, seeing that Thou hast given Him power and authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all the members of that mystical body which Thou hast given Him." When we read here of "the Father giving power to the Son," we must carefully remember that it is not the giving of a superior to an inferior. It signifies that arrangement in the counsels of the eternal Trinity, by which the Father gives to the Son especially the carrying out of the work of redemption. Newton thinks the "power" includes the dignity of judgment at the last day, as in John 5:22. The expression "all flesh" seems to me, as it does to Augustine, Bullinger, Newton, and others, to denote all mankind. All are not saved, but Christ has power and authority over all. Some confine it to the "elect," but I cannot see the force of their argument. To my eyes it is like John 3:16, where "world" and "believers" are in contradistinction. So it seems here, "all flesh" and "given ones." Chrysostom thinks that the phrase "all flesh" had special reference to the calling of the Gentiles into the Church; and that our Lord meant that henceforward He was to be "Saviour of Gentiles as well as Jews." The phrase "eternal life" includes everything that is necessary to the complete salvation of a soul,— the life of justification, sanctification, and final glory. The Son gives "eternal life" to none but those who are "given to Him," in the everlasting counsels of the Trinity, from all eternity. Who these are man cannot say. "Many of the given ones," say Traill, "do not for a long time know it." All are invited to repent and believe, without distinction. No one is warranted in saying, "I was not given to Christ, and cannot be saved." But that the last day will prove that none are saved except those given to Christ by the Father, is clear and plain. Poole remarks, "We need not ascend up to heaven to search the rolls of the eternal counsels. All whom the Father hath given to Christ shall come to Christ; and not only receive Him as Priest, but give themselves up to be ruled and quickened by Him. By such a receiving of Christ we shall know whether we are of the number of those that are given to Christ." Traill remarks, "This giving of men to the Son to be redeemed and saved is the same thing with election and predestination." "There is a twofold giving of men to the Son by the Father. One is eternal, in the purpose of His grace; and this is mainly meant here. The other is in time; when the Father by His Spirit draws men to Christ. (John 6:44.) All the elect are given from eternity to the Son, to be redeemed by His blood; and all the redeemed are in due time drawn by the Father to the Son, to be kept to eternal life." v3.—[And this is life eternal, etc.] This verse is mercifully given to us by our Lord as a description of saved souls. "The secret of possessing eternal life,— of being justified and sanctified now, and glorified hereafter,— consists simply in this: in having a right saving knowledge of the one true God, and of that Jesus Christ whom He has sent to save sinners." In short, our Lord declares that he who rightly knows God and Christ is the man who possesses eternal life. Of course we must distinctly understand that mere head-knowledge, like that of the devil, is not meant by our Lord in this verse. The knowledge He means is a knowledge which dwells in the heart and influences the life. A true saint is one who "knows the Lord." To know God on the one hand— His holiness, His purity, His hatred of sin; and to know Christ on the other hand— His redemption, His mediatorial office, His love to sinners,— are the two grand foundations of saving religion. Right knowledge after all lies at the root of all vital Christianity, as light was the beginning of creation. We need to be "renewed in knowledge." (Colossians 3:10.) We must know what we believe, and we cannot properly worship an unknown God. Do we know God, and do we know Christ aright? are the two great questions to be considered. God known out of Christ is a consuming fire, and will fill us with fear only. Christ known without God will not be truly valued: we shall see no meaning in His cross and passion. To see clearly at the same time a holy, pure, sin-hating God, and a loving, merciful, sin-atoning Christ, is the very A B C of comfortable religion. In short, it is life eternal to know rightly God and Christ. "To know God without Christ," says Newton, "is not to know Him savingly." Traill remarks, "The secret moth and poison in many people's religion is, that it is not Christianity at all. God out of Christ is a consuming fire; God not worshipped in Christ is an idol; all hopes of acceptance out of Christ are vain dreams; a heaven out of Christ is little better than the Turks' paradise." The Greek of the phrase, "that they might know," would have been better rendered, "to know." It is the same phrase that is so rendered in John 4:34 : "My meat is to do the will." Literally, this is, "My meat is that I may do the will." Let us learn that knowledge is the chief thing in religion, though we must not make it an idol. Most wicked men are what they are because they are ignorant. Godly people are often described in Scripture by one single phrase: "They know God." The argument which Arians and Socinians have always loved to found on this verse appears to me extremely weak. Their idea, that our Lord did not lay claim to divinity, because He speaks of the Father as the "only true God," is foolish and unreasonable. Chrysostom, Cyril, Toletus, and others, remark very sensibly, that the word "only" was not meant to exclude the Son and the Holy Ghost, but only those idols and false gods with which the heathen religions had filled the earth when Christ appeared. The very fact that eternal life consists in knowing not only God, but Christ, goes far to prove Christ's divinity. Manton remarks that the expression in this verse had a two-fold object: firstly, to exclude the idols and false gods; and secondly, to show the order and economy of salvation." Let us note that this is the only place in the New Testament where our Lord calls Himself "Jesus Christ." v4.—[I have glorified Thee on the earth.] The meaning of these words I take to be this: "I have now glorified Thee during my life on earth by keeping Thy law perfectly, so that Satan can find no defect or blemish in Me,— by witnessing faithfully to Thy truth in opposition to the sins and false teaching of the Jews,— by showing Thee and Thy mind towards man in a way that was never known before." [I have finished the work...to do.] The meaning of these words I take to be this: "I have completed the work of redemption which Thou didst send Me into the world to accomplish,— My death and resurrection being so near that to all intents and purposes it is finished." On the use of the past tense here instead of the future, Augustine remarks, "Christ saith He has finished that which He most surely knows He will finish. Thus long before in prophecy he used verbs of past tense, when that which He said was to come to pass after many years. 'They pierced,' says He, 'my hands and my feet:' not they will pierce." (Psalms 22:16.) It has been truly remarked that Christ alone, of all born of woman, could say literally "I have finished the work Thou gavest Me to do." He did what the first Adam failed to do, and all the saints in every age fail to do: He kept the law perfectly, and by so keeping it brought in everlasting righteousness for all them that believe. Yet here is the model we ought to keep before our eyes continually. We must aim to finish the work our Father appoints for us, whether great or small. Musculus remarks, that true godly obedience is to be seen not merely in doing such work as we arbitrarily take up, but in doing such work as God appoints us to do. It admits of doubt, whether there is not a latent reference in the end of this verse to Daniel's prophecy, that Messiah would "finish transgression, make an end of sins, make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness." (Daniel 9:24.) Let it be carefully noted that Christ's redeeming work on earth was "work which the Father gave Him to do." He was the Person commissioned in the counsels of the everlasting Trinity to do this work. "On the earth" must include the whole period of Christ's incarnation, from His birth until His ascension. During all that period He glorified the Father by perfect unvarying holiness. v5.—[And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me, etc.] Having briefly recited His work on earth, or, as it were, rendered an account of His ministry, our Lord now repeats the one prayer with which He began: "Glorify Me." The meaning of this verse I take to be as follows: "Father, my earthly work being now finished, I ask to be restored to that heavenly glory which in an unspeakable manner I had with Thee, as one of the co-equal and undivided Trinity, long before this world existed. The period of my humiliation and self-imposed weakness being accomplished, let Me once more share Thy glory, and sit with Thee on Thy throne as I did before my incarnation." It is needless to say that the things asked in this prayer, both here and elsewhere, are very deep, and reach far beyond man's understanding. The glory which the Son had with the Father, in the time before the creation of the world, is a matter passing our comprehension. But the pre-existence of Christ, the doctrine that Father and Son are two distinct persons, and the equal glory of the Father and the Son, are at any rate taught here very plainly. It seems perfectly impossible to reconcile the verse with the Socinian theory,— that Christ was a mere man, like David or Paul, and did not exist before He was born at Bethlehem. Let us also learn the practical lesson, that a prayer for glory comes best from those who have done work upon earth for God. A lazy wish to go to glory without working is not according to Christ's example. v6.—[I have manifested Thy name.] In this part of the prayer our Lord begins to speak of His believing people: directly of the eleven apostles, but indirectly and partially of all believers in every age. And the rest of the prayer from this point is entirely taken up with the case of the disciples. The sentence before us means, "I have made known Thyself, Thy character, and Thine attributes to my disciples." The word "name" is continually used in this sense in the Bible. Thus: Psalms 22:22; Psalms 52:9; Psalms 119:55; Isaiah 26:8; Acts 9:14; Proverbs 18:10. A right knowledge of God the Father was the first thing which Christ revealed and taught to His disciples. Burgon remarks, "The word name is here used in that large signification, so well known to readers of Scripture, whereby it is made to stand for God himself. The Psalmist says, 'The name of the God of Jacob defend thee.' (Psalms 20:1.) The evangelist says, 'They shall call His name Emmanuel;' meaning, that our Saviour would be what the name Emmanuel means: viz., 'God with us.' As often thus as our Lord made known to men the mind and will of the eternal Father, so often did He manifest His name." Traill remarks, "What is the Father's name? Many think they know it, to whom Christ never revealed it. If you ask them whether they know Christ's Father's name, they have a ready answer. He is the first Person in the Trinity. He is the Almighty, the maker and ruler of heaven and earth. Yes: but this is the name of God only, and that in general! The name of Christ's Father is that name and discovery of God wherein He stands related to the Son." [Unto the men...gavest them Me.] In this sentence our Lord describes His disciples. He calls them "men whom the Father gave Him out of the world,— men who were the elect children of the Father, and whom the Father committed and entrusted to His care as to a good Shepherd." Lampe thinks that "men" are emphatically mentioned here to the seclusion of angels. Believers are "given" to Christ by the Father, according to an everlasting covenant made and sealed, long before they were born; and taken out from the world, by the calling of the Spirit, in due time. They are the Father's peculiar property, as well as the property of the Son. They were of the world, and nowise better than others. Their calling and election out of the world to be Christ's people, and not any foreseen merit of their own, is the real foundation of their character. These are deep things, things to be read with peculiar reverence, because they are the words of the Son addressed to the Father, and handling matter about believers, which the Eternal Trinity alone can handle with positiveness and certainty. Who those are who are given to Christ by the Father, we can only certainly know by outward evidences. But that all believers are so given by the Father, predestined, elect, chosen, called by an everlasting covenant, and their names and exact number known from all eternity, is truth which we must reverently believe, and never hesitate to receive. So long as we are on earth we have to do with invitations, promises, commands, evidences, and faith; and God's election never destroys our responsibility. But all true believers, who really repent and believe and have the Spirit, may fairly take comfort in the thought, that they were known and cared for and given to Christ by an eternal covenant, long before they knew Christ or cared for Him. It is an unspeakable comfort to remember that Christ cares for that which the Father has given Him. [And they have kept Thy word.] Here our Lord continues the description of His disciples, and names things about them which may be seen by men as well as God. He says, "They have kept, or observed, or attended to, the Word of the Gospel, which Thou didst send them by Me. While others would not attend to or keep that Word, these eleven men had hearing ears and attentive hearts, and diligently obeyed Thy message." Practical obedience is the first great test of genuine discipleship. v7.—[Now they have known, etc.] In this verse our Lord proceeds to give an account of His disciples. The meaning seems to be, "They have now attained such a degree of knowledge, that they know that the words they have heard and the works they have seen from Me, are words and works given Me to speak and do by Thee." The idea is that they know my mission to be divine. "They know that Thou hast sent Me to be the Messiah, and hast commissioned Me to speak and act as I have done." Here, as elsewhere, it is striking to observe how Jesus dwells on a right knowledge of the Father as the great truth which He came into the world to reveal. v8.—[For I have given...words...gavest Me.] In this sentence our Lord declares what He had done in teaching His disciples: He had given them the words, doctrines, or truths, which the Father had given Him to proclaim to the world. The words which our Lord spoke, and the works which He did, were both alike given Him by the Father to speak and to do, in the eternal counsels of the Trinity about man's salvation. For the peculiar use of the phrase, "words," to denote the truths or doctrines taught by our Lord, see John 3:34; John 6:68; John 12:48; John 14:10. Specially we should remark Peter's saying, "Thou hast the words of eternal life." [They have received, etc., etc.] Our Lord here declares three remarkable things about His disciples. They had willingly received and embraced the truths He brought them from the Father. They had known and acknowledged that their Master came from God the Father. They believed and were persuaded that the Father sent Him to be the Messiah. And all this had taken place when the vast majority of their countrymen neither acknowledged nor believed anything of the kind. We should carefully note the high character given to the disciples by our Lord. It seems wonderful, at first sight, when we remember their many defects in faith and knowledge, that our Lord should commend them for "knowing" and "believing." Yet when we think of their immensely difficult position, and the opposition they had to meet, we shall see it was no light matter to believe at all. It is after all a very comfortable reflection that our Lord does not despise weak grace; and that He honours reality and sincerity of faith, although it may be very small. Believers make a better appearance in heaven than they do upon earth. The word rendered "surely" is literally "truly." It is translated "surely" in Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70. The idea is, "They have known for a sure and undoubted truth." Manton observes, "The faith of the Apostles was weak. They had but a confused view of Christ's Godhead and eternal generation. They knew little of His death, were filled with the thought of a terrene [earthy - terrestrial] kingdom and a pompous Messiah, and understood not His prediction of His death and passion. Though they knew Him to be the Redeemer and Saviour of the world, yet the manner of His death and passion they knew not. 'We trusted that it had been He that should have redeemed Israel.' Yet observe how Christ commendeth their weak faith! Certainly He loveth to encourage poor sinners, when He praiseth their mean and weak beginnings." Traill observes, "Christ tells all the good He can of His disciples, and covers their failings. How poorly had they received Christ's Word! How weak and staggering was their faith! How oft had Christ reproved them sharply for their unbelief and other faults! Yet not a word of all this in Christ's representing them to His Father! This is the constant gracious way of our High Priest. He makes no mention of His Israel's faults in heaven, but for their expiation." THESE verses, like every part of this wonderful chapter, contain some deep things which are "hard to be understood." But there are two plain points standing out on the face of the passage which deserve the special attention of all true Christians. Passing by all other points, let us fix our attention on these two. We learn, for one thing, that the Lord Jesus does things for His believing people which He does not do for the wicked and unbelieving. He helps their souls by special intercession. He says, "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given Me." The doctrine before us is one which is specially hated by the world. Nothing gives such offence, and stirs up such bitter feeling among the wicked, as the idea of God making any distinction between man and man, and loving one person more than another. Yet the world's objections to the doctrine are, as usual, weak and unreasonable. Surely a little reflection might show us that a God who regarded good and bad, holy and unholy, righteous and unrighteous, with equal complacency and favor, would be a very strange kind of God! The special intercession of Christ for His saints is agreeable to reason and to common sense. Of course, like every other Gospel truth, the doctrine before us needs careful statement and Scriptural guarding. On the one hand, we must not narrow the love of Christ to sinners; and on the other we must not make it too broad. It is true that Christ loves all sinners, and invites all to be saved; but it is also true that He specially loves the "blessed company of all faithful people," whom He sanctifies and glorifies. It is true that He has wrought out a redemption sufficient for all mankind, and offers it freely to all; but it is also true that His redemption is effectual only to them that believe. Just so it is true that He is the Mediator between God and man; but it is also true that He intercedes actively for none but those that come unto God by Him. Hence it is written, "I pray for them: I pray not for the world." This special intercession of the Lord Jesus is one grand secret of the believer's safety. He is daily watched, and thought for, and provided for with unfailing care, by One whose eye never slumbers and never sleeps. Jesus is "able to save them to the uttermost who come unto God by Him, because He ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Hebrews 7:25.) They never perish, because He never ceases to pray for them, and His prayer must prevail. They stand and persevere to the end, not because of their own strength and goodness, but because Jesus intercedes for them. Judas fell never to rise again, while Peter fell, but repented, and was restored. The reason of the difference lay under those words of Christ to Peter, "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." (Luke 22:32.) The true servant of Christ ought to lean back his soul on the truth before us, and take comfort in it. It is one of the peculiar privileges and treasures of a believer, and ought to be well known. However much it may be wrested and abused by false professors and hypocrites, it is one which those who really feel in themselves the workings of the Spirit should hold firmly and never let go. Well says the judicious Hooker,— "No man's condition so safe as ours: the prayer of Christ is more than sufficient both to strengthen us, be we ever so weak; and to overthrow all adversary power, be it ever so strong and potent." ("Hooker's Sermons." Nisbet's edit., 1834, p. 171.) We learn, for another thing, in these verses, that Christ does not wish His believing people to be taken out of the world, but to be kept from the evil of it. We need not doubt that our Lord's all-seeing eye detected in the hearts of His disciples an impatient desire to get away from this troubled world. Few in number and weak in strength, surrounded on every side by enemies and persecutors, they might well long to be released from the scene of conflict, and to go home. Even David had said in a certain place, "Oh, that I had wings like a dove, then would I flee away and be at rest!" (Psalms 55:6.) Seeing all this, our Lord has wisely placed on record this part of His prayer for the perpetual benefit of His Church. He has taught us the great lesson that He thinks it better for His people to remain in the world and be kept from its evil, than to be taken out of the world and removed from the presence of evil altogether. Nor is it difficult on reflection to see the wisdom of our Lord's mind about His people, in this as in everything else. Pleasant as it might be to flesh and blood to be snatched away from conflict and temptation, we may easily see that it would not be profitable. How could Christ's people do any good in the world, if taken away from it immediately after conversion?— How could they exhibit the power of grace, and make proof of faith, and courage, and patience, as good soldiers of a crucified Lord?— How could they be duly trained for heaven, and taught to value the blood and intercession and patience of their Redeemer, unless they purchased their experience by suffering?— Questions like these admit of only one kind of answer. To abide here in this vale of tears, tried, tempted, assaulted, and yet kept from falling into sin, is the surest plan to promote the sanctification of Christians, and to glorify Christ. To go to heaven at once, in the day of conversion, would doubtless be an easy course, and would save us much trouble. But the easiest course is not always the path of duty. He that would win the crown must carry the cross, and show himself light in the midst of darkness, and salt in the midst of corruption. "If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him." (2 Timothy 2:12.) If we have any hope that we are Christ's true disciples, let us be satisfied that Christ knows better than we do what is for our good. Let us leave "our times in His hand," and be content to abide here patiently as long as He pleases, however hard our position, so long as He keeps us from evil. That He will so keep us we need not doubt, if we ask Him, because He prays that we may be "kept." Nothing, we may be sure, glorifies grace so much as to live like Daniel in Babylon, and the saints in Nero's household,— in the world and yet not of the world,— tempted on every side and yet conquerors of temptation, not taken out of the reach of evil and yet kept and preserved from its power. ================== Notes— v9.—[I pray for them, etc., etc.] In this verse our Lord begins that part of His prayer which is specially intercessory, and proceeds to name things which He asks for His disciples, from this point down to the end of the chapter. It may be convenient to remember that the things He asks may be divided under four heads. He prays that His disciples may be (a) kept, (b) sanctified, (c) united, (d) and be with Him in glory. Four more important things cannot be desired for believers. To say, as some have said, that our Lord's intercessory prayer is an exact specimen of what He does in heaven as our High Priest, is straining a point, and going too far. To suppose that the Son literally asks things of the Father by prayer in heaven, is in my judgment unreasonable, and a very limited, narrow view of Christ's intercession. We are reading a prayer made by our Lord during the time of His earthly ministry, before His ascension and session at God's right hand; and we are not reading an account of what He does for us, as our Priest, within the veil. Let it suffice us to believe that the intercession of this chapter exhibits accurately Christ's mind toward believers, His desires for believers, the active interest He takes in believers, and the graces He would fain see in believers. Above all, let us believe that if we seek for ourselves the same four things that Jesus here names, we have a Friend in heaven who will take care that we do not seek in vain, and will make our prayer effectual. There are two interpretations of our Lord's meaning, when He speaks of praying for the disciples, and "not praying for the world." Some, as Bengel and Alford, think that our Lord meant, "At this present moment I pray specially for my disciples, and not for the world." They will not admit that our Lord does not pray and intercede in any way for the wicked and unbelieving; and they quote with some show of reason His prayer at the crucifixion for His murderers,— "Father, forgive them." (Luke 23:34.) Others, as Hutcheson and Lampe, think that our Lord meant, "I pray specially for my disciples, because now and always it is their special privilege to be prayed for and interceded for by Me." The advocates of this view maintain that it is derogatory to our Lord's honour to suppose that He can ever ask anything in vain; and that His intercession specially belongs to "those who come unto God by Him." (Hebrews 7:25.) The point in dispute is a nice and delicate one, and will probably never be settled. On the one hand we must take care that we do not forget that our Lord Jesus Christ does take a special interest in His believing people, and does do special things for them which He does not do for the wicked and unbelieving.— On the other hand we must not forget that our Lord pities all, cares for all, and has provided salvation sufficient for all mankind. There is no escaping the text which says of the wicked that they "deny the Lord that bought them." (2 Peter 2:1.) The most fair and honest interpretation of the text, "God so loved the world" (John 3:16), is to regard "the world" as meaning all mankind. The whole dispute turns, as is often the case in such disputes, on the meaning we put on a word. If by "intercession" we mean vaguely and generally the whole mediatorial work of Christ on behalf of mankind, it is then true that Christ intercedes for all, both good and bad; and this text before us must mean, "I pray at this moment specially for my people, and am only thinking of them."— If, on the other hand, we mean by "intercession" that special work which Christ does for His people, in order to carry them to heaven, after calling, pardoning, justifying, renewing, and sanctifying them, it is then plain that Christ intercedes for none but believers, and that the words before us mean, "I pray now, as always, specially for my disciples, and not for the world." If I must give an opinion, I must own that I decidedly hold the second or last view of which I have spoken. I believe that Christ never, in the fullest sense of the word, "makes intercession" for the wicked. I believe that such intercession is a peculiar privilege of the saints, and one grand reason of their continuance in grace. They stand, because there is One in heaven who actively and effectually intercedes. I will give place to no one in maintaining that Jesus loves all mankind, came into the world for all, died for all, provided redemption sufficient for all, calls on all, invites all, commands all to repent and believe; and ought to be offered to all— freely, fully, unreservedly, directly, unconditionally— without money and without price. If I did not hold this, I dare not get into a pulpit, and I should not understand how to preach the Gospel. But while I hold all this, I maintain firmly that Jesus does special work for those who believe, which He does not do for others. He quickens them by His Spirit, calls them by His grace, washes them in His blood— justifies them, sanctifies them, keeps them, leads them, and continually intercedes for them— that they may not fall. If I did not believe all this, I should be a very miserable, unhappy Christian. Holding this opinion, I regard the text before us as one which describes our Lord's special intercession for His people; and I take the meaning to be simply, "I pray for them, as my peculiar people, that they may be kept, sanctified, united, and glorified; but I do not pray for the world." The famous text, "Father, forgive them" (Luke 23:34), is at best a doubtful one. Will any one undertake to say, that those for whom our Lord prayed were never forgiven and saved?— Have we forgotten that within fifty days after that prayer 3,000 souls were converted at Pentecost, of whom Peter said, "By wicked hands ye crucified and slew Jesus of Nazareth"? (Acts 2:23.) Who can prove that the very men who crucified our Lord were not among the number of the converted, and were thus the answer to our Lord's prayer?— These however are conjectures at the very best. The matter is one which is not necessary to salvation, and one about which Christians must agree to differ, and must not excommunicate one another. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Romans 14:5.) Hengstenberg remarks, "The world may be viewed under two aspects. First, there is the susceptibility of grace, which, despite the depths of the sinful depravation of Adam's race, still remains in it. Of the world in this sense Jesus says, 'I came not into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world.' (John 1:29; John 3:17.) Viewed under this aspect, the world is the subject of Christ's intercession. The disciples themselves were won from the world. But the world may also be viewed as ruled by predominantly ungodly principles. Of the world in this sense we read that it cannot receive the 'Spirit of truth.' (John 14:17.) To pray for the world, thus viewed, would be as vain as to pray for the prince of this world." Manton suggests that we must draw some distinction between the intercession of Christ as a Divine Mediator, and the prayers of Christ as a man, wherein He is an example to His people. Yet, however just this remark, it hardly seems to apply to this peculiarly solemn prayer. [For them...given Me...thine.] Our Lord here repeats the description of His disciples which He had given before. They were men whom "the Father had given Him" to teach, and feed, and save. They were His Father's sheep, intrusted to His charge. Therefore, He seems to argue, "I am specially bound to pray for them, and ask for them everything that their souls need. Like a good Shepherd, I must give an account of them one day." v10.—[And all mine...thine...mine.] This sentence seems to come in parenthetically, and to be a reassertion of the great truth of the perfect unity of the Father and the Son. The words in the Greek mean literally "things," and not "persons." "All my things are Thy things, and all Thy things are my things. As with everything else, these eleven disciples are not mine more than Thine, or Thine more than mine." This continual assertion of the doctrine of the perfect unity of the Godhead, and the distinction of the Persons in the Trinity, is very remarkable and instructive. [I am glorified in them.] In this sentence our Lord seems to return to the disciples. "I have been and am glorified in them, by their faith and obedience and love, when the vast majority of their countrymen have hated and rejected Me. They have honoured Me and brought glory to Me, by continuing with Me in my tribulation. Therefore I now make special prayer and intercession for them." Let us mark here that the weakest faith and love to Christ brings Him some glory, and is not overlooked by Him. v11.—[And now I am...come to Thee.] In the beginning of this verse our Lord describes the position of the disciples, and shows the special reason why they required prayer and intercession to be made for them. They were about, for the first time, to be left alone like orphans, and thrown on their own resources, in a certain sense. Hitherto they had always had their Master at their side, and could turn to Him in every case of need. Now they were about to enter on a totally different condition of things.— "The time of my departure from the world is at hand. I am very soon about to ascend into heaven and come to Thee. But these few sheep, these weak disciples, are not coming to heaven with Me. They are going to be left alone in a wicked, cold, persecuting world." Poole observes, "Christ here speaks of Himself as one who had already died, and was already risen, and ascended, though none of all these things were past, because they were so soon and suddenly to come." Let us not fail to note how our Lord remembers the position of His people here on earth,— cares tenderly for them, and will make all needful provision for their safety and comfort. "I know thy works, and where thou dwellest." (Revelation 2:13.) [Holy Father.] This is the only place in the Gospels where we find our Lord addressing the Father by this epithet. There is doubtless some good reason for it. It may be that there is a fitness in asking the "Holy" Father to keep the disciples holy and free from the dominion of evil. "As Thou art holy, so keep these my disciples holy." [Keep through Thine...name...given Me.] Here is the first petition that our Lord puts up for His disciples. He asks that they may be kept and preserved from evil, from falling away, from false doctrine, from being overcome by temptation, from being crushed by persecution, from every device and assault of the devil. Danger was around them on every side. Weakness was their present characteristic. Preservation was what He asked. The expression, "Keep through Thine own name," is remarkable. I take it to mean, "Through Thine own attributes of power, love, and wisdom." The "name" of God, as before remarked, is frequently used in Scripture to signify His character and attributes. [That they may be one, as we are.] Here our Lord mentions one special object for which He desires that His people may be kept: viz., their unity: that they may be one.— "Keep them, that they may be of one heart and one mind, striving together against common foes and for common ends, and not broken up, weakened, and paralyzed by internal quarrels and divisions." He adds the highest model and pattern of unity,— "one, as we are,"— the unity of the Father and the Son. Of course there cannot be literally such unity between Christian and Christian, as there is between two Persons in the Trinity. But the unity which Jesus prays the disciples may aim at, should be a close, intimate, unbroken unity of mind, and will, and opinion, and feeling. Burgon remarks here, "The word rendered 'as,' both here and in John 17:21, does not denote strict correspondence, but only general resemblance; as in the Athanasian Creed, where the union of two natures in the one Person of Christ, is popularly illustrated by the union of the 'reasonable soul and flesh' in man." (Comp. Matthew 5:48; Luke 6:36.) The importance attached by our Lord to "unity" among Christians, is very strikingly illustrated by the prominent place assigned to it in this verse. The very first object for which He desires the preservation of the disciples, is that they may be kept from division. Nor can we wonder at this, when we consider the interminable divisions of Christians in every age, the immense harm they have done in the world, and the astounding indifference with which many regard them, as if they were perfectly innocent things, and as if the formation of new sects was a laudable work! v12.—[While...with them...kept...Thy name.] Our Lord here recites what He had done for the disciples during His ministry: "Throughout the three years in which I have been with these eleven disciples in the world, I used to keep them from all harm, through Thy power and name."— I can see no reason why the same Greek words should not be rendered "through Thy name," in this verse, as well as in the preceding one. In both cases the idea seems the same,— a preservation through the grace, power, and attributes of God the Father. [Thou...gavest...kept...none...lost.] The word rendered "kept" in this clause, is quite different from the word so rendered in the first part of the verse. There it means simply, "I have preserved." Here it means, "I have guarded," like a shepherd guarding a flock, or a soldier guarding a treasure. "I have so carefully guarded those disciples whom Thou hast given Me, that not one of them has perished, or is lost." [But the son of perdition.] This remarkable expression of course refers to Judas Iscariot, the traitor, the only one of the Apostles who was lost and cast away in hell. The name given to Judas is a strong Hebraism, and means "a person worthy of perdition, or only fit to be lost and cast away, by reason of his wickedness." David says to Saul's servants, "Ye are worthy to die;" or, as the margin says, "sons of death." (1 Samuel 26:16.) Again, he says to Nathan, "The man that hath done this thing shall surely die," or, "is a son of death." (2 Samuel 12:5; see also Psalms 79:11; Matthew 13:38; Luke 16:8.) It is a tremendously strong expression to come from the lips of our merciful and loving Saviour. It shows the desperate hopelessness of any one who, living in great light and privileges like Judas, misuses his opportunities, and deliberately follows the bent of his own sinful inclinations. He becomes the "child of hell." (Matthew 23:15.) A question of very grave importance arises out of the words before us. Did our Lord mean that Judas was originally one of those that the Father "gave to him," and was primarily a true believer? Did he therefore fall away from grace?— Many maintain, as Hammond, Alford, Burgon, and Wordsworth, that Judas was at one time a true believer, like Peter, James, and John,— that the text is an unanswerable proof that grace may be lost,— and that a man may be converted, and have the Holy Ghost, and yet finally fall away, and perish for ever in hell.— This is not only a very uncomfortable doctrine, but one which it is hard to reconcile with many plain texts of Scripture, to say nothing of the seventeenth Article of our own Church.— But does the text before us clearly prove that Judas was one of those who were "given" to Christ by the Father? I believe firmly that it does not. I maintain that the "but" in the text is not an "exceptive" word, but an "adversative" one. I hold the right meaning to be, "Those whom Thou gavest Me I have kept, and out of them not one is lost. But there is one man who is lost, even Judas the son of perdition; not one who was ever given to Me, but one whom I declared long ago to be 'a devil,' a man whose hardened heart fitted him for destruction." It is easy of course to say that this view is a far-fetched and non-natural one. I ask those who say this to observe, that the same Greek words here rendered "but," are used in other places in the New Testament, where it is impossible to put an "exceptive" sense on them, and where the "adversative" meaning is the only one they can possibly bear.— I challenge any one to deny that "but," in such texts as Matthew 12:4, "but only for the priests,"— Mark 13:32, "but the Father,"— Revelation 9:4, "but only those men,"— Revelation 21:27, "but they which are written,"— must be interpreted as an "adversative," and cannot possibly be an "exceptive" word. (See also Acts 27:22 and 2 Kings 5:17.) And so it is here. Our Lord does not mean, "No one of those given to Me is lost EXCEPT the son of perdition."— What He does mean is, "Not one of those given to Me is lost. On the other hand, and in contrast, Judas, a man not given to Me, a graceless man, is lost." Let me add, in confirmation of the view I maintain, that in the very next chapter the expression here used is referred to by John, in his account of our Lord's capture. "He says, "The saying was fulfilled which He spake: Of them which Thou gavest Me have I lost none" (John 18:9); and not one hint does he give of any exception having been made by our Lord, when he heard Him use the expression before. The view I advocate is maintained by De Dieu, Gomarus, Lampe, Hutcheson, and Manton. It is a curious fact that even in our own English language, Milton, writing in the seventeenth century, when the last revision of our Bible took place, has used the word "except" in the same way. He says of Satan, in "Paradise Lost:"— "God and His Son except, created thing Nought valued He or shunned." "Except" there must clearly be "adversative." God and His Son are not created things! Both Brown (on xvii. John) and Doddridge quote this sentence of Milton. Bishop Beveridge, quoted by Ford, remarks, "Judas, here called the son of perdition, though he seemed to be given to Christ, and to come to Him, yet really did not. Therefore, though he was lost, as the Scripture had foretold, yet Christ's word is still true, that He never casts out, nor loseth any, that really come to Him." [That Scripture...fulfilled.] Here, as in many places, it does not mean that Judas was lost in order to fulfill Scripture, but that the Scripture was fulfilled by the loss of Judas. The place referred to is Psalms 109:8. Let us not fail to note the high honour put on Scripture in this place. Even in a prayer of the utmost solemnity addressed by the Son to the Father, we find reverent allusion to the written word of the Old Testament, and to that oft-quoted book, the Psalms. v13.—[And now come I to Thee, etc.] This is a somewhat elliptical verse. I take the meaning to be something of this kind: "I am now soon leaving the world, and coming to Thee. Before leaving the world, I speak these things openly in prayer in the hearing of these my disciples, in order that they may be cheered and comforted, and feel the joy which I give to them filled up and abounding in their hearts." I can hardly think that our Lord is referring to the discourse which preceded this prayer. It seems more natural to apply "these things I speak" to His prayer. The expression, "my joy," occurs before, in John 15:11. It must mean that peculiar, inward sense of comfort that Christ imparts to believers, and which no one knows excepting him who receives it. v14.—[I have given them Thy Word, etc.] In this verse our Lord appears to describe more fully the position of the disciples as an introduction to a more full repeated prayer for their preservation. It is as though He said, "I do not pray that my disciples may be kept without good reason. I have given them the Word of the Gospel, and they have received it, and have been at once persecuted and ill-treated for receiving it. In short, the world has hated them ever since they became my disciples, because, like myself, they are not of the world, neither holding the world's principles, nor walking in the world's ways." Let us not fail to remark that true believers must expect the hatred and enmity of the wicked in every age. They must not be surprised at it. Christ and His disciples had to endure it, and all real Christians must endure it too. The reason of this enmity is the continued testimony which believers bear against the world's opinions and practices. The world feels itself condemned, and hates those whose faith and lives condemn it. If believers were more bold, decided, and consistent, they would soon find these things out more than they do now. The good opinion of the world is about the last thing a true Christian should expect or desire. If all men speak well of his opinions and ways in religion, he may well doubt whether there is not something very wrong and defective about them. We are not to court the world's enmity. A narrow, morose, uncourteous, and exclusive spirit, is downright wrong. But we are never to be the least surprised by the world's enmity if we meet with it; and the more holy we are, the more we shall meet with it. Christ was perfect in holiness; but the world hated Him. v15.—[I pray not that Thou, etc., etc.] In this verse our Lord repeats, and develops more fully, His prayer that His disciples may be kept. His meaning appears to be this:— "Wicked and persecuting as the world is, I pray not that Thou wouldest take my disciples immediately out of it. Such removal would be bad for themselves, and bad for the world. What I do pray is, that remaining in the world, Thou wouldest keep them from the evil of the world. Though in it, let them not be spoiled or corrupted by it." The deep wisdom of this prayer is very instructive. There are few Christians who would not like to go to heaven without trouble, conflict, and persecution. Yet it would not be for their own sanctification, and it would deprive the world of the benefit of their teaching and example. Believers would never value Christ and heaven as much as they will do one day, if they were not kept here on earth a good deal, taught to know their own hearts, and, like their Master, "perfected by suffering." (Hebrews 2:10.) Hutcheson remarks, "However much we ought to have our eye upon our rest, and make ready for it, yet we are not anxiously to long for it till God's time come, nor to be weary of life because of any trouble, persecution, or inconvenience we meet with in His service." There is a strong indirect argument here, as Bullinger and Gualter remark, against the favourite theory of many, that entire retreat from the world, by going into monasteries and convents, is the secret of eminent holiness. Eminent holiness is most seen by publicly winning a victory over evil, and not by a cowardly desertion of our post in society. Three of the only prayers not granted to saints, recorded in Scripture, are the prayers of Moses, Elijah, and Jonah, to be "taken out of the world." Gerhard remarks that the Apostles were to be the first preachers of the Gospel and the light of the world. If they had been taken away immediately after their Lord, the world would have been left in darkness. Moreover, the cross is the school of faith and patience, and without remaining in the world they could not have become eminent saints. George Newton remarks, "The world is the place where we bring glory to the Lord; in the world to come we are glorified by Him. Oh, let us be so ingenuous as to desire to be awhile where we may glorify God, rather than where we may have glory from Him. Let us not be so eager for our wages and our rest, till we have finished our work and served our generation. When we have done so God will glorify us with Himself for ever." The meaning of the phrase, "the evil," is a point on which there is much difference of opinion. Some think that it means simply, as our translation of the Bible has it,— evil in the abstract,— all evil of every kind,— like "deliver us from evil" in the Lord's prayer; and they think that it includes all evil that may assail us from the world, the flesh,, and the devil. Others think that the words would have been better rendered, "the evil one," and apply the expression to the devil, as the first great cause and beginner of evil. The word is so rendered in Matthew 13:19-38; 1 John 2:13-14; 1 John 3:12; 1 John 5:18. The question is one which will probably never be settled, and the Greek phrase may be translated either way. Nevertheless I decidedly incline to think that our translation is right. It is "evil" in the abstract, and not the devil, that our Lord means. I think so, partly because the devil is not anywhere brought forward in this prayer, and partly because it is more consistent to reason to suppose our Lord would have His disciples kept from all kind of "evil," than from the devil only. This is the more clear to my mind, from the fact that it is "the world," and its hatred and enmity, which our Lord has just been speaking of, and not the devil. However, I freely admit that it is an open question. v16.—[They are not of the world, etc.] These words are a literal repetition of the end of the fourteenth verse, and need no further comment. Our Lord seems to repeat them in order to add emphasis to the request He has just made; and the repetition strengthens my opinion that it is "the evil in the world" which He specially desires His people to be kept from. "They need to be specially kept and preserved, because, I repeat, there is an entire want of harmony, a gulf of separation between them and this wicked world, in which I leave them. They are much hated, and need to be much kept." Repetitions in real, earnest prayer, we may observe, are not wrong: Christ's example warrants them. It is "vain repetitions," such as were common among the heathen, repeating the same words over and over again, without thought or feeling, against which we are warned in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 6:7.) These wonderful verses form a fitting conclusion of the most wonderful prayer that was ever prayed on earth,— the last Lord's prayer after the first Lord's Supper. They contain three most important petitions which our Lord offered up in behalf of His disciples. On these three petitions let us fix our attention. Passing by all other things in the passage, let us look steadily at these three points. We should mark, first, how Jesus prays that His people may be sanctified. "Sanctify them," He says, "through Thy truth: Thy word is truth." We need not doubt that, in this place at any rate, the word "sanctify" means "make holy." It is a prayer that the Father would make His people more holy, more spiritual, more pure, more saintly in thought and word and deed, in life and character. Grace had done something for the disciples already,— called, converted, renewed, and changed them. The great Head of the Church prays that the work of grace may be carried higher and further, and that His people may be more thoroughly sanctified and made holy in body, soul, and spirit,— in fact more like Himself. Surely we need not say much to show the matchless wisdom of this prayer. More holiness is the very thing to be desired for all servants of Christ. Holy living is the great proof of the reality of Christianity. Men may refuse to see the truth of our arguments, but they cannot evade the evidence of a godly life. Such a life adorns religion and makes it beautiful, and sometimes wins those who are not "won by the Word." Holy living trains Christians for heaven. The nearer we live to God while we live, the more ready shall we be to dwell forever in His presence when we die. Our entrance into heaven will be entirely by grace, and not of works; but heaven itself would be no heaven to us if we entered it with an unsanctified character. Our hearts must be in tune for heaven if we are to enjoy it. There must be a moral "meetness for the inheritance of the saints in light," as well as a title. Christ's blood alone can give us a title to enter the inheritance. Sanctification must give us a capacity to enjoy it. Who, in the face of such facts as these, need wonder that increased sanctification should be the first thing that Jesus asks for His people? Who that is really taught of God can fail to know that holiness is happiness, and that those who walk with God most closely, are always those who walk with Him most comfortably? Let no man deceive us with vain words in this matter. He who despises holiness and neglects good works, under the vain pretense of giving honor to justification by faith, shows plainly that he has not the mind of Christ. We should mark, secondly, in these verses, how Jesus prays for the unity and oneness of His people. "That they all may be one,— that they may be one in Us,— that they may be one even as We are one",— and "that so the world may believe and know that Thou hast sent Me,"— this is a leading petition in our Lord's prayer to His Father. We can ask no stronger proof of the value of unity among Christians, and the sinfulness of division, than the great prominence which our Master assigns to the subject in this passage. How painfully true it is that in every age divisions have been the scandal of religion, and the weakness of the Church of Christ! How often Christians have wasted their strength in contending against their brethren, instead of contending against sin and the devil! How repeatedly they have given occasion to the world to say, "When you have settled your own internal differences we will believe!" All this, we need not doubt, the Lord Jesus foresaw with prophetic eye. It was the foresight of it which made Him pray so earnestly that believers might be "one." Let the recollection of this part of Christ's prayer abide in our minds, and exercise a constant influence on our behavior as Christians. Let no man think lightly, as some men seem to do, of schism, or count it a small thing to multiply sects, parties, and denominations. These very things, we may depend, only help the devil and damage the cause of Christ. "If it be possible, as much as lieth in us, let us live peaceably with all men." (Romans 12:18.) Let us bear much, concede much, and put up with much, before we plunge into secessions and separations. They are movements in which there is often much false fire. Let rabid zealots who delight in sect-making and party-forming, rail at us and denounce us if they please. We need not mind them. So long as we have Christ and a good conscience, let us patiently hold on our way, follow the things that make for peace, and strive to promote unity. It was not for nothing that our Lord prayed so fervently that His people might be "one." We should mark, finally, in these verses, how Jesus prays that His people may at last be with Him and behold His glory. "I will," He says, "that those whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am: that they may behold my glory." This is a singularly beautiful and touching conclusion to our Lord's remarkable prayer. We may well believe that it was meant to cheer and comfort those who heard it, and to strengthen them for the parting scene which was fast drawing near. But for all who read it even now, this part of his prayer is full of sweet and unspeakable comfort. We do not see Christ now. We read of Him, hear of Him, believe in Him, and rest our souls in His finished work. But even the best of us, at our best, walk by faith and not by sight, and our poor halting faith often makes us walk very feebly in the way to heaven. There shall be an end of all this state of things one day. We shall at length see Christ as He is, and know as we have been known. We shall behold Him face to face, and not through a glass darkly. We shall actually be in His presence and company, and go out no more. If faith has been pleasant, much more will sight be; and if hope has been sweet, much more will certainty be. No wonder that when Paul has written, "We shall ever be with the Lord," he adds, "Comfort one another with these words." (1 Thessalonians 4:17-18.) We know little of heaven now. Our thoughts are all confounded, when we try to form an idea of a future state in which pardoned sinners shall be perfectly happy. "It does not yet appear what we shall be." (1 John 3:2.) But we may rest ourselves on the blessed thought, that after death we shall be "with Christ." Whether before the resurrection in paradise, or after the resurrection in final glory, the prospect is still the same. True Christians shall be "with Christ." We need no more information. Where that blessed Person is who was born for us, died for us, and rose again, there can be no lack of anything. David might well say, "In Thy presence is fullness of joy, and at Thy right hand are pleasures forevermore." (Psalms 16:11.) Let us leave this wonderful prayer with a solemn recollection of the three great petitions which it contains. Let holiness and unity by the way, and Christ's company in the end, be subjects never long out of our thoughts or distant from our minds. Happy is that Christian who cares for nothing so much as to be holy and loving like his Master, while he lives, and a companion of his Master when he dies. ================== Notes— v17.—[Sanctify them, etc.] In this verse our Lord proceeds to name the second thing He asks for His disciples in prayer. Preservation was the first thing, and sanctification the second. He asks His Father to make the disciples more holy, to lead them on to higher degrees of holiness and purity. He asks Him to do it "through the truth,"— by bringing truth to bear more effectually and powerfully on their hearts and consciences and inner man. And to prevent mistake as to what He meant by truth, he adds, "Thy Word, Thy revealed Word, is the truth that I mean." Some, as Maldonatus, maintain that the sentence only means "sanctify them truly,"— in opposition to that legal sanctification of priests, of which we read in Exodus and Leviticus. This, however, seems a very cold, thin, shallow sense to put on the words. Some, again, as Mede, Pearce, and Burgon, maintain that our Lord is only praying that His Apostles may be consecrated, fitted, and set apart for the great work of the ministry, and that this is all the meaning of "sanctify." This appears to me an imperfect and defective view of the sentence. No doubt the word "sanctify" originally and primarily means "set apart, separate for religious uses;" and it might be used of a vessel, a house, or an animal. But inasmuch as in human beings this separation is principally evidenced by holiness and godliness of life and character, the secondary sense of "sanctify" is "to make holy," and holy and godly people are "sanctified." This I hold to be the meaning here most decidedly. It is a prayer for the increased holiness and practical godliness of Christ's people. In short, the petition comes to this: "Separate them more and more from sin and sinners, by making them more pure, more spiritual-minded, and more like Thyself." This is the view of Chrysostom and all the leading commentators. Four great principles may be gathered from this text. (a) The importance of sanctification and practical godliness. Our Lord specially asks it for His people. Those that despise Christian life and character, and think it of no importance so long as they are sound in doctrine, know very little of the mind of Christ. Our Christianity is worth nothing, if it does not make us value and seek practical sanctification. (b) The wide difference between justification and sanctification. Justification is a perfect and complete work obtained for us by Christ, imputed to us, and external to us, as perfect and complete the moment we believe, as it can ever be, and admitting of no degrees.— Sanctification is an inward work wrought in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, and never quite perfect so long as we live in this body of sin. The disciples needed no prayer for justification: they were completely justified already. They did need prayer for their sanctification; for they were not completely sanctified. (c) Sanctification is a thing that admits of growth; else why should our Lord pray, "Sanctify them"? The doctrine of imputed sanctification is one that I can find nowhere in the Word of God. Christ's imputed righteousness I see clearly, but not an imputed holiness. Holiness is a thing imparted and in-wrought, but not imputed. (d) The Word is the great instrument by which the Holy Ghost carries forward the work of inward sanctification. By bringing that Word to bear more forcibly on mind, and will, and conscience, and affection, we make the character grow more holy. Sanctification from without by bodily austerities and asceticism, and a round of forms, ceremonies, and outward means, is a delusion. True sanctification begins from within. Here lies the immense importance of regularly reading the written Word, and hearing the preached Word. It surely, though insensibly, promotes our sanctification. Believers who neglect the Word will not grow in holiness and victory over sin. Calvin remarks, "As the apostles were not destitute of grace, we ought to infer from Christ's words that sanctification is not instantly completed in us on the first day, but that we make progress in it through the whole course of our life." Hutcheson remarks, "It is not enough that men have a begun work of sanctification in them, unless they grow up in it daily more and more. Christ prayeth for those who were already converted and sanctified." Augustine thinks that "Thy Word" in this place means the Personal Word, Christ Himself. But in this opinion I can find no one holding with him, except Rupertus. v18.—[As Thou hast sent Me, etc.] The connection between this verse and the preceding one seems to me to be this: "I ask for the increased sanctification of my disciples, because of the position they have to occupy on earth. Just as Thou didst send Me to be Thy Messenger to this sinful world, so have I now sent them to be my messengers to the world. It is therefore of the utmost importance that they should be holy— the holy messengers of a holy Master,— and so stop the mouths of their accusers." Believers are Christ's witnesses, and the character of a witness should be spotless and blameless. For this reason our Lord specially prays that His disciples may be "sanctified." v19.—[And for their sakes I sanctify myself.] This is a rather hard passage. In one sense, of course, our Lord needed no sanctification. He was always perfectly holy and without sin. I believe, with Chrysostom, the meaning must be, "I consecrate myself, and offer myself up as a sacrifice and a priest, for one special reason, to say nothing of others: in order that these my disciples may be sanctified by the truth, and made a holy people."— Is it not as good as saying, "The sanctification no less than the justification of my people is the end of my sacrifice"? "I want to have a people who are sanctified as well as justified. So much importance do I attach to this that this is one principal reason why I now offer myself to die as a sacrifice."— The same idea seems to lie in the text: "He gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people." And again: "Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it." (Titus 2:14; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Peter 2:24.) Melancthon remarks, "The word 'I sanctify myself,' in this place, without doubt, is taken from priests and victims." v20.—[Neither pray I for these alone, etc.] In this and the three following verses our Lord proceeds to name another thing that He prays for His people. He asks that they may be "one." He had already named this on behalf of the eleven Apostles. But He takes occasion now to enlarge the prayer, and to include others beside the eleven,— the whole company of future believers. "I now pray also for all who shall believe on Me through the preaching of my disciples in all future time, and not for my eleven apostles only." All believers needed preservation and sanctification in every age; but none so much as the eleven, because they were the first to attack the world and bear the brunt of the battle. In some respects it was more easy to be "one" at the first beginnings of the Church, and harder to be kept and "sanctified." As the Church grew, it would be more difficult to keep unity. Let us mark how wide was the scope of our Lord's intercessory prayer. He prayed not only for present, but for future believers. So should it be with our prayers. We may look forward and pray for believers yet to be born, though we may not look back and pray for believers who are dead. George Newton observes what an encouragement it should be to us in praying for others, for a child or a friend, to remember that perhaps Christ is asking him or her of God too. He here prays for those who did not yet believe, but were to believe one day. Let us mark how the "word" preached is mentioned as the means of making men believe. Faith cometh by hearing. The Church which places Sacraments above the preaching of the Word, will have no blessing of God, because it rejects God's order. Hengstenberg thinks that the "word" here must include the writings of the Apostles as well as their sermons. v21.—[That they all...one in us.] The meaning of this sentence I take to be, "I pray that both these my disciples, and those who hereafter shall become my disciples, may all be of one mind, one doctrine, one opinion, one heart, and one practice, closely united and joined together, even as Thou, Father, and I are of one mind and one will, in consequence of that ineffable union whereby Thou art in Me and I in Thee." Here, as in John 17:11, we must carefully remember that the unity between the Father and the Son is one which the unity of believers cannot literally attain to. They must however imitate it. The true secret of the unity of believers lies in the expression, "one in us." They can only be thoroughly "one" by being joined at the same time to one Father and to one Saviour. Then they will be one with one another. Ferns thinks that one thing in our Lord's mind in this sentence was the union of Jew and Gentile into one Church, and the removal of the "wall of partition." [That the world...believe...sent Me.] Here our Lord brings in one important reason why He prays for His people to be "one." It will help to make the world believe His Divine mission. "When the world sees my people not quarreling, not divided, but one in judgment, heart, and life, then the world will begin to believe that the Saviour, who has such a people, must really be a Saviour sent from God." Let us carefully note how well our Lord foresaw the effect which the lives, ways, and opinions of professing Christians have on the world around them. The want of unity, and consequent strife among English Christians in the last 300 years, has been a miserable example of the enormous damage that believers may do their Master's cause by neglecting this subject. "How much," says George Newton, "our blessed Saviour and His Gospel suffer by the hot contentions of those who call themselves saints." v22.—[And the glory, etc., etc.] In this verse our Lord repeats His deep desire for the unity of His people. He declares, "that in order that they may be one, He has given them the glory which the Father gave Him." This is a very difficult expression, and one which seems to puzzle all commentators. The whole question is, what did our Lord mean by "the glory" which He gave. (a) Some, as Calvin, think that "glory" means the image and likeness of God, by which the disciples were renewed. (2 Corinthians 3:18.) (b) Some, as Bengel, think that "glory" means that insensible power, influence, and authority, which accompanied all our Lord did and said during His earthly ministry. Thus Moses had "glory" in his countenance when coming down from the mount. (2 Corinthians 3:7.) This same power and influence Christ gave to the Apostles. (See Acts 4:33.) (c) Some, as Zwingle, Brentius, Gualter, and Pearce, think that "glory" means the power of working miracles, which was the special and peculiar glory of our Lord while He was on earth. Thus, we read, "Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father." (Romans 6:4.) (d) Some, as Augustine, Ecolampadius, Bullinger, and Manton, think that "glory" means the heavenly glory and immortality which our Lord promised to His disciples,— a glory which they should have after faithfully serving Him on earth. (Romans 8:18.) (e) Toletus makes the strange suggestion, that the "glory" means that which is communicated to us in the Lord's Supper! Burgon seems to take the same view. (f) Stier and Heugstenberg hold that the "glory" means unity of mind and heart. (g) Some, as Gregory Nyssen, Ammonius, Theophylact, and Bucer, think that "glory" means the Holy Ghost, who is elsewhere called "the Spirit of glory." (1 Peter 4:14.) The question will probably never be settled. If I must give an opinion, I prefer the last view to any other. It suits the end of the verse better than any other. Nothing was so likely to make the disciples "one" as the gift of the Holy Ghost. v23.—[I in them, and Thou in Me, etc.] In this verse our Lord simplifies His declarations about unity, and expands them more fully, in order to show emphatically how great importance He attached to unity. I take the meaning to be something of this kind: "I pray that my disciples may be so closely united— I dwelling in them, and Thou dwelling in Me,— that they may be compacted and perfected into one body,— having one mind, one will, one heart, and one judgment, though having many members,— and that then the world, seeing this unity, may be obliged to confess that Thou didst send Me to be the Messiah, and that Thou lovest my people even as Thou lovest Me." In leaving this deep and difficult passage about unity, it is well to remember that the Church, whose unity the Lord desires and prays for, is not any particular or visible Church, but the Church which is His Body, the Church of the elect, the Church which is made up of true believers and saints alone. Moreover, the unity which our Lord prays for is not unity of forms, discipline, government, and the like; but unity of heart, and will, and doctrine, and practice. Those who make uniformity the chief subject of this part of Christ's prayer, entirely miss the mark. There may be uniformity without unity, as in many visible Churches on earth now. There may be unity without uniformity, as between godly Episcopalians and godly Presbyterians. Uniformity no doubt may be a great help to unity, but it is not unity itself. The unity which our Lord prays about here is that true, substantial, spiritual, internal, heart unity, which undoubtedly exists among all members of Christ of every Church and denomination. It is the unity which results from one Holy Ghost having made the members of Christ what they are. It is unity which makes them feel more of one mind with one another than with mere professors of their own party. It is unity which is the truest freemasonry on earth. It is unity which shakes the world, and obliges it to confess the truth of Christianity.— For the continued maintenance of this unity, and an increase of it, our Lord seems to me in this prayer specially to pray. And we need not wonder. The divisions of mere worldly professors are of little moment. The divisions of real true believers are the greatest possible injury to the cause of the Gospel. If all believers at this moment were of one mind, and would work together, they might soon turn the world upside down. No wonder the Lord prayed for unity. v24.—[Father, I will...my glory...given Me.] In this verse our Lord names the fourth and last thing which He desires for His disciples in His prayer. After preservation, sanctification, and unity, comes participation of His glory. He asks that they may be "with Him" in the glory yet to be revealed, and "behold," share, and take part in it. "I will" is a remarkable phrase, though it must not be pressed and strained too far. (See Mark 6:25; Mark 10:35.) The daughter of Herodias asking the head of John the Baptist, said, "I will that thou give me." It may be nothing more than the expression of a strong "wish." Yet it is the wish of Him who is one with the Father, and only wills what the Father wills. It is probably used to assure the mind of the disciples. "I will," and it will be done. Hutcheson says, " 'I will,' doth not import any imperious commanding way, repugnant to His former way of humble supplication; but it only imports that in this His supplication, He was making His last will and testament, and leaving His legacies, which He was sure would be effectual, being purchased by His merits, and prosecuted by His affectionate and earnest requests and intercessions." Traill remarks, "Christians, behold the amazing difference betwixt Christ's way of praying against His own hell (if I may so call it) and His praying for our heaven! When praying for Himself, it is, 'Father, if it be Thy will, let this cup pass from Me.' But when Christ is praying for His people's heaven, it is, "Father, I will that they may be with Me.' " Stier maintains that "I will" "is no other than a testamentary word of the Son, who in the unity of the Father, is appointing what He wills, at that second limit of the prayer where petition ceases." Alford says "this is an expression of will founded on acknowledged right." The expression, "Be with Me where I am," is one of those deeply interesting phrases which show the nature of the future dwellingplace of believers. Wherever it may be, whether before or after the resurrection, it will be in the company of Christ. It is like "with Me in Paradise," "depart and be with Christ," and "for ever with the Lord." (Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:17.) The full nature of the future state is wisely hidden from us. It is enough for believers to know that they will be "with Christ." It is company, and not place, which makes up happiness. Traill remarks, "Heaven consists in the perfect immediate presence of Christ. Perfect presence is, when all on both sides is present: all of Christ and all of the Christian. But now all of Christ is not with us, and all of us is not with Him. On His part we have Christ's Spirit, word, and grace. On our part there is present with Him our hearts, and the workings of our faith and love and desire towards Him. But this presence is imperfect, and mixed with much distance and absence." The expression, "Behold my glory," of course must not be confined to the idea of "looking on as spectators." It includes participation, sharing, and common enjoyment. (Compare John 3:3-36; John 8:51; Revelation 18:7.) The expression, "Which Thou hast given Me," seems to point to that special glory which the Father, in everlasting covenant, has appointed for Christ as the reward of the work of redemption. (Philippians 2:9.) [For Thou lovedst Me...foundation...world.] This sentence seems specially inserted in order to show that the glory of Christ in the next world is a glory which had been prepared from all eternity, before time began, and before the creation of man, and that it was not only something which, like Moses or John the Baptist, He had obtained by His faithfulness on earth; but something which He had, as the eternal Son of the eternal Father, from everlasting. '' Thou lovedst Me, and did assign Me this glory long before this world was made," that is, from all eternity. This is a very deep saying, and contains things far above our full comprehension. v25.—[O righteous Father, etc.] In this verse our Lord begins the final winding up of His wonderful prayer. He does it by declaring the position of things in which He was about to leave the world and His disciples. I take the meaning to be this: "I come to Thee from a world which knows Thee not, and has refused to know Thee throughout my ministry. But in the midst of this world I have known Thee and steadily adhered to Thee. And these my disciples have acknowledged and confessed that Thou didst send Me to be the Messiah." It is not clear why our Lord uses the expression, "Righteous Father." It is one which stands alone. It may possibly be intended to bring out in strong contrast the wickedness of a world which "knew not the Word," when the Word was in it (see John 1:10), and the justice of God in punishing this world, which refused to know Christ while the disciples received Him. The expression, "I have known Thee," seems to point to the veil of humiliation which covered our Lord during the whole period of His incarnation. "Even then," He seems to say, "I never ceased to know and honour Thee." The high testimony born to the disciples once more deserves notice. With all their infirmity, "they have KNOWN my Divine mission." v26.—[And I have declared...declare it.] In this sentence our Lord briefly sums up what He had done, and was still doing for the disciples: "I have made known to them Thy name and character and attributes, as the sender of salvation to a lost world, and will continue to declare it after my ascension, by the Holy Spirit." Here, as elsewhere, our Lord again declares that to make known the Father was one great object of His ministry. The expression, "I will declare it," says George Newton, is a proof that "Jesus Christ will be continually making further declarations of His Father's name to other nations and other persons, to the end of the world. He will be ever teaching new scholars to spell it and understand it, in every generation, while the world endureth." [That...in them...I in them.] Our Lord ends His prayer by expressing His wish that the Father's love may dwell in the hearts of His disciples, and that He Himself may dwell in their hearts. "My great desire is that they may know and feel the love wherewith Thou dost love Me, and that I may ever dwell in their hearts by faith." Let us not forget that one great wish of Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians, was that "Christ might dwell in their hearts by faith." (Ephesians 3:17.) He also tells the Romans "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts." (Romans 5:5.) The expression, "I will declare my love," is a difficult one. It can only mean, "I will declare it personally during the interval between my resurrection and my ascension," or "I will continue to declare it by my Spirit's continual teaching after I leave the world." The latter seems the more probable meaning. The expression, "Thy love maybe in them," is another grave difficulty. It must either be "That Thy love, the same love wherewith Thou lovest Me, may be directed on and toward them;" or else, "That they may feel in their own hearts a sense of that same love toward them wherewith Thou lovest Me." I prefer the latter sense. George Newton remarks on this verse, "If Christ is in you, let me give you this caution: let Him live quiet in your hearts. Do not molest Him and disturb Him; do not make Him vex and fret. Let it not be a penance to Him to continue in you. But labour every way to please Him, and give Him satisfaction and content, that so the house He hath chosen may not be dark and doleful, but delightful to Him." Manton remarks, "If an earthly King lie but one night in a house, what care there is taken that nothing be offensive to him, and that all be neat and sweet and clean. How much more careful ought you to be to keep your hearts clean, to perform service acceptable to Him, to be in the exercise of faith, love, and other graces, that so you may entertain, as you ought, your heavenly King, who comes to take up His continual abode in your hearts." We may well feel humbled, as we leave this chapter, when we think of our ignorance of the true meaning of many of its phrases. How much of our exposition is nothing better than feeble conjecture! We seem only to scratch the surface of the field. Let us only remember that the four things prayed for by our Lord are things that every Christian should daily desire,— preservation, sanctification, unity, and final glory in Christ's company. George Newton closes his Exposition of the whole chapter with these touching words:— "How earnest and importunate is Christ with God the Father, that we may be one here, and that we may be in one place hereafter! Oh, let us search into the heart of Jesus Christ, laid open to us in this abridgment of His intercession for us, that we may know it and the workings of it more and more, until at length the precious prayer comes to its full effect, and we be taken up to be for ever with the Lord, and where He is there we may be also!" These verses begin John's account of Christ's sufferings and crucifixion. We now enter on the closing scene of our Lord's ministry, and pass at once from His intercession to His sacrifice. We shall find that, like the other Gospel-writers, the beloved disciple enters fully into the story of the cross. But we shall also find, if we read carefully, that he mentions several interesting points in the story, which Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for some wise reasons, have passed over. We should notice, first, in these verses, the exceeding hardness of heart to which a backsliding professor may attain. We are told that Judas, one of the twelve Apostles, became guide to them that took Jesus. We are told that he used his knowledge of the place of our Lord's retirement, in order to bring His deadly enemies upon Him; and we are told that when the band of men and officers approached his Master in order to make Him prisoner, Judas "stood with them."— Yet this was a man who for three years had been a constant companion of Christ, had seen His miracles, had heard His sermons, had enjoyed the benefit of His private instruction, had professed himself a believer, had even worked and preached in Christ's name!— "Lord," we may well say, "what is man?" From the highest degree of privilege down to the lowest depth of sin, there is but a succession of steps. Privileges misused seem to paralyze the conscience. The same fire that melts wax, will harden clay. Let us beware of resting our hopes of salvation on religious knowledge, however great; or religious advantages, however many. We may know all doctrinal truth and be able to teach others, and yet prove rotten at heart, and go down to the pit with Judas. We may bask in the full sunshine of spiritual privileges, and hear the best of Christian teaching, and yet bear no fruit to God's glory, and be found withered branches of the vine, only fit to be burned. "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall." (1 Corinthians 10:12.) Above all, let us beware of cherishing within our hearts any secret besetting sin, such as love of money or love of the world. One faulty link in a chain-cable may cause a shipwreck. One little leak may sink a ship. One allowed and unmortified sin may ruin a professing Christian. Let him that is tempted to be a careless man in his religious life, consider these things, and take care. Let him remember Judas Iscariot. His history is meant to be a lesson. We should notice, secondly, in these verses, the entire voluntariness of Christ's sufferings. We are told that the first time that our Lord said to the soldiers, "I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground." A secret invisible power, no doubt, accompanied the words. In no other way can we account for a band of hardy Roman soldiers falling prostrate before a single unarmed man. The same miraculous influence which tied the hands of the angry crowd at Nazareth,— which made the priests and Pharisees powerless at the triumphant entry into Jerusalem,— which stopped all opposition when the temple was purged of buyers and sellers,— that same mysterious influence was present now. A real miracle was wrought, though few had eyes to see it. At the moment when our Lord seemed weak, He showed that He was strong. Let us carefully remember that our blessed Lord suffered and died of His own free will. He did not die because He could not help it; He did not suffer because He could not escape. All the soldiers of Pilate's army could not have taken Him, if He had not been willing to be taken. They could not have hurt a hair of His head, if He had not given them permission. But here, as in all His earthly ministry, Jesus was a willing sufferer. He had set His heart on accomplishing our redemption. He loved us, and gave Himself for us, cheerfully, willingly, gladly, in order to make atonement for our sins. It was "the joy set before Him" which made Him endure the cross, and despise the shame, and yield Himself up without reluctance into the hands of His enemies. Let this thought abide in our hearts, and refresh our souls. We have a Savior who was far more willing to save us than we are willing to be saved. If we are not saved, the fault is all our own. Christ is just as willing to receive and pardon, as He was willing to be taken prisoner, to bleed, and to die. We should notice, thirdly, in these verses, our Lord's tender care for His disciples' safety. Even at this critical moment, when His own unspeakable sufferings were about to begin, He did not forget the little band of believers who stood around Him. He remembered their weakness. He knew how little fit they were to go into the fiery furnace of the High Priest's Palace, and Pilate's judgment-hall. He mercifully makes for them a way of escape.— "If ye seek Me, let these go their way."— It seems most probable that here also a miraculous influence accompanied his words. At any rate, not a hair of the disciples' heads was touched. While the Shepherd was taken, the sheep were allowed to flee away unharmed. We need not hesitate to see in this incident an instructive type of all our Savior's dealings with His people even at this day. He will not suffer them "to be tempted above that which they are able to bear." He will hold the winds and storms in His hands, and not allow believers, however sifted and buffeted, to be utterly destroyed. He watches tenderly over every one of His children, and, like a wise physician, measures out the right quantity of their trials with unerring skill. "They shall never perish, neither shall any one pluck them out of His hand." (John 10:28.) Forever let us lean our souls on this precious truth. In the darkest hour the eye of the Lord Jesus is upon us, and our final safety is sure. We should notice, lastly, in these verses, our Lord's perfect submission to his Father's will. Once, in another place, we find Him saying, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." Again, in another place, we find Him saying, "If this cup may not pass away from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done." Here, however, we find even a higher pitch of cheerful acquiescence: "The cup which my Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?" (Matthew 26:39-42; John 18:11.) Let us see in this blessed frame of mind, a pattern for all who profess and call themselves Christians. Far as we may come short of the Master's standard, let this be the mark at which we continually aim. Determination to have our own way, and do only what we like, is one great source of unhappiness in the world. The habit of laying all our matters before God in prayer, and asking Him to choose our portion, is one chief secret of peace. He is the truly wise man who has learned to say at every stage of his journey, "Give me what Thou wilt, place me where Thou wilt, do with me as Thou wilt; but not my will, but Thine be done." This is the man who has the mind of Christ. By self-will Adam and Eve fell, and brought sin and misery into the world. Entire submission of will to the will of God is the best preparation for that heaven where God will be all. ================== Notes— v1.—[When Jesus...these words.] This would have been more literally rendered, "Jesus having said these things." The "things" referred to, seem to me to include the discourse of the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters, as well as the prayer of the seventeenth. Henry observes, "The office of the priest was to teach and pray and offer sacrifice. Christ, after teaching and praying, applies Himself to make atonement. He had said all He had to say as a prophet. He now addresses Himself to His work as priest." [He went forth...disciples.] The question arises, "From what place did He go forth?" and it receives very different answers. Many, as Cyril, Ecolampadius, Maldonatus, Doddridge, and Ellicott, think that it only means He went forth from the room where He had held the Lord's Supper and delivered His parting address and prayer. The advocates of this view hold that our Lord did not actually go out of the room, when He said, at the end of the fourteenth chapter, "Arise, let us go hence," and that He probably continued His discourse, and prayed standing. This, to say the least, seems a very unnatural view. Some, as Burgon, think that our Lord spoke the latter part of His address and prayer within the precincts of the temple, and that the words before us mean that He moved away from the temple. This, however, seems hardly probable. It was night, we know. There is no evidence that gatherings of people by night were held within the temple precincts. The most probable view, in my opinion, seems to be that Jesus went forth out of the city, after concluding His discourse and prayer, and that after leaving the room where the Lord's Supper was held, at the end of the fourteenth chapter, He spoke and prayed near the gates, or within the city walls. He left the room when He said, "Arise, let us go hence." Then having reached some quiet spot near the walls, He continued His discourse and prayed. Then after that He went out of the city. This seems to me the more natural account. [Over the brook Cedron.] The Cedron here mentioned, is the same as the Kidron named more than once in the Old Testament. The word "brook" means, literally, a "winter torrent," and this, according to all travellers, is precisely what the Kidron is. Excepting in winter, or after rains, it is merely the dry bed of a water-course. It lies on the east side of Jerusalem, between the city and the Mount of Olives. It is the same Kidron which David passed over weeping, when obliged to flee from Jerusalem by the rebellion of Absalom. (2 Samuel 15:23.) It is the same Kidron by the side of which Asa burnt the idol of his mother Maachah (2 Chronicles 15:16), and into which Josiah cast the dust of the idolatrous altars which he destroyed. (2 Kings 23:12.) Lampe says that the way by which our Lord left the city, was the way by which the scape-goat, Azazel, was annually sent out into the wilderness on the great day of atonement. Bishop Andrews say that "the first breach made by the Romans, when Titus took Jerusalem, was at the brook Cedron, where they took Christ." [Where was a garden...disciples.] There can be little doubt that this garden is the same as the "place called Gethsemane." What kind of a garden it was we know not, unless a garden of olive trees. Probably it was neither a garden of flowers nor of herbs, but simply a place enclosed, where trees were sheltered and encouraged to grow, in order to provide a quiet shady retirement away from the bustle of the city. Whether it was a public garden, or private property, we know not. Hengstenberg conjectures that "the owner of the place must have stood in some special relation to Jesus," and that this accounts for His frequent and free resort to the place. He also conjectures that the "young man" named in Mark 14:51-52, must have belonged to the family of the owner. This however is pure conjecture. Almost all commentators notice the curious fact that the fall of Adam and Eve took place in a garden, and Christ's passion also began in a garden, and the sepulchre where Christ was laid was in a garden, and the place where He was crucified, was in a garden. (John 19:41.) Augustine remarks, "It was fitting that the blood of the Physician should there be poured out, where the disease of the sick man first commenced." Gualter remarks that the first Adam had everything that was pleasant in the Garden of Eden, and yet fell. The second Adam had everything that was painful and trying in the Garden of Gethsemane, but was a glorious Conqueror. The agony in Gethsemane, we may observe, is entirely passed over by John in his Gospel; and for wise reasons, we need not doubt. But it is evident that it took place at this point of the narrative. The order of things is: first, the Lord's Supper,— then the long discourse recorded by John alone,— then the marvellous prayer,— then the going over Cedron into the garden,— then the agony,— and then the arrival of Judas and the capture of our Lord. It is plain therefore that there is a pause in the narrative of John's Gospel at this point, and that we must allow a little space of time for the agony, after our Lord "went out" of the city and crossed the Cedron. This would make the arrival of Judas and the soldiers far on in the night. Lightfoot mentions a curious fact which he draws from a Jewish writer,— that the blood from the sacrifices in the temple ran down a drain into the brook Kidron, and was then sold to the gardeners for the purpose of dressing their gardens. The blood having been consecrated, could not be put to common uses without sin, and therefore the gardeners paid for it as much as would buy a trespass offering. This is curious, if true. v2.—[And Judas also, etc.] This verse is one of John's peculiar explanatory comments. He tells us that this garden was a place where our Lord and His disciples were in the habit of assembling together, when they went up to Jerusalem at the great Jewish feasts. At such seasons the crowd of worshippers was very great; and many had to content themselves with such shelter as they could find under trees, or rocks, in the open air. This is what Luke means when he says, "At night He went out and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives." (Luke 21:37.) Excepting at the celebration of the first Lord's Supper, we have no mention of our Lord ever being in any house in Jerusalem. Chrysostom remarks, "It is evident from this that Jesus generally passed the night out of doors." Bucer thinks that Judas specially knew the place where our Lord used to pray. Our Lord's habits of prayer were as well known as those of Daniel. The fact that the traitor Judas "knew the place," while our Lord deliberately went there, shows three things. One is, that our Lord went to His death willingly and voluntarily; He went to the "garden," knowing well that Judas was acquainted with the place.— Another thing is, that our Lord was in the habit of going to this garden so "often," that Judas felt sure He would be found there.— Another thing is, that the heart of Judas must have been desperately hard, when, after so many seasons of spiritual refreshment as he must have seen in this garden, he could use his knowledge for the purpose of betraying his Master. He "knew the place," because he had often heard his Master teaching and praying there. He knew it from spiritual associations, and yet turned his knowledge to wicked ends! May we not learn from this verse that there is nothing to be ashamed of, nothing wrong, in loving one place more than another, and choosing one place more than another, for communion with God? Even our blessed Lord had one special place, near Jerusalem, more than other places, to which He often resorted. The common idea of some, that it matters not where or in what place we worship, and that it is unspiritual and wrong to care for one seat in church more than another, can hardly be reconciled with this verse. The Greek words rendered "resorted thither," are literally "were gathered together there." v3.—[Judas then having received, etc.] This verse begins John's circumstantial account of the taking and subsequent passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. A careful reader will not fail to observe that John entirely passes over several points in this history which are mentioned by the three other Gospel writers, and not least the bargaining of Judas with the priests to betray our Lord for money. But it is evident that John assumes that his readers were acquainted with the other three Gospels, and purposely dwells on points which they had not mentioned. The expression "a band of men," can only mean "the detachment of Roman soldiers" which had been lent by Pilate to the priests for the occasion. Some think that it means literally "a cohort," which was the tenth part of a legion, and consisted of four or five hundred men. This, however, seems doubtful. Yet Matthew speaks of Judas coming, and "a great multitude with him." (Matthew 26:47.) The "officers" mean the Jewish servants of the priests and Pharisees, who accompanied the Roman soldiers. The party, therefore, which Judas led consisted of two distinct elements,—Roman soldiers detached from the garrison of Jerusalem, and Jewish servants got together by the leaders of the Jews. Gentiles and Jews were, therefore, equally concerned in the arrest. The number of the party was probably large, from the fear of an attempt at a rescue by the Galilean Jews, who were supposed to favour our Lord. They would be at Jerusalem in large numbers at the Passover, and after our Lord's recent triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the priests might well feel doubts whether they would allow Him to be made a prisoner without a struggle. Chrysostom remarks that "these men had often, at other times, sent to seize Him, but had not been able. Hence it is plain that at this time He voluntarily surrendered Himself." The "lanterns and torches" at first sight may seem to have been needless, as the moon at Passover time was full. But they were doubtless intended to assist the party in searching for our Lord if he endeavoured to hide Himself among the rocks and trees. And in a deep valley there would be many dark and shady places. The "weapons" most probably apply to the Jewish servants of the priests. It is unreasonable to suppose that Roman soldiers would ever move without their arms. For fear of resistance the Jewish portion of the party took arms also. Burkitt remarks on the activity and energy of wicked men, "At the very time when Peter, James, and John were sleeping in the garden, Judas and his bloody followers were gathering, marching, and planning a murder." The confidence of Judas that our Lord would be in the garden, shows plainly how familiar he was with our Lord's habits on the occasion of his visits to Jerusalem. v4.—[Jesus...knowing...come upon Him.] This sentence shows our Lord's perfect foreknowledge of everything that was about to happen to Him. Never was there a more willing, deliberate, and voluntary sufferer than our Lord. The words "things that should come" would be more literally rendered "the things coming," in the present tense. The best of martyrs, like Ridley and Latimer, did not know for certain, up to the moment of their deaths, that something might not occur to alter the mind of their persecutors and save their lives. Our Lord knew perfectly well that His death was sure, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Ford quotes a saying of Pinart, that "what rendered Christ's sufferings most terrible was the perfect foreknowledge He had of the torments He should endure. From the first moment of His life He had present to His mind the scourge, the thorns, the cross, and the agonizing death which awaited Him. Saw He a lamb in the meadow or a victim in the temple, the sight reminded Him that He was the lamb of God, and that He was to be offered up a sacrifice." [Went forth.] This must mean that our Lord came forward from that part of the garden where He was, and did not wait for the party of Judas to find Him. On the contrary he suddenly showed Himself, and met them face to face. The effect of this action alone must have been startling to the soldiers. They would feel at once that they had to do with no common person. Henry remarks, "When the people would have forced Him to take a crown and wished to make Him a king, he withdrew and hid Himself. (John 6:15.) But when they came to force Him to His cross He offered Himself. He came to this world to suffer, and went to the other world to reign." Lampe remarks that the first Adam hid himself in the garden. The second Adam went forth to meet His enemies. The first felt guilty, the second innocent. [And said...Whom seek ye?] Jesus Himself was the first to speak, and did not wait to be challenged or commanded to surrender. This sudden question no doubt would take the party of Judas by surprise, and prepare the way for the mighty miracle which followed. The soldiers must needs have felt, "this is not the language or manner of a malefactor or a guilty man." v5.—[They answered...Jesus...Nazareth.] This would be more literally rendered "Jesus the Nazarene." It is certainly hard to suppose that those who said this could have known that Jesus Himself was speaking to them. It looks as if they did not know our Lord by sight, or could not believe that the bold speaker before them could be the prisoner they came to apprehend. That many of the party did not know our Lord by sight, is clear from the fact mentioned by Matthew and Mark, that Judas had given them a sign: "Whomsoever I kiss, that same is He: hold Him fast." This sign, therefore, had not yet been given. Probably there was no time for it. The coming forward and question of our Lord had taken place so suddenly that they took the whole party by surprise. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Gualter, Brentius, Gerhard, and Ferus, think that our Lord miraculously blinded the eyes of the party, so that they did not recognize him, as Elisha blinded the Syrians. (2 Kings 6:18.) They had lights, and they must have known his voice. But they seem to have been unable to know him. Musculus thinks they did not recognize Him, and thought Him a disciple. [Jesus saith...I am He.] Our Lord here makes a plain, bold, full avowal that He is the very person whom they seek. It must have been a most startling announcement. The words in the Greek are literally "I am." Some have thought that there was intentional reference to the famous passage in Exodus, where the Lord says, "I AM hath sent you" (Exodus 3:14), to which also our Lord certainly did refer in John 8:58. But it seems very doubtful whether such a reference would have been used in speaking to such a party as those who came to seize our Lord. [And Judas...stood with them.] It is not quite clear why this little sentence is put in here. It may be meant to show the desperate wickedness of Judas. He stood side by side with the enemies of Jesus.— It may be meant to show that even Judas himself was staggered and confounded by our Lord's boldness, and did not give his companions the promised sign, not recognising him any more than the others. The false apostle stood there like one struck dumb.— It may be meant to show that Judas himself was a witness and a subject of one of the last great miracles our Lord wrought. He himself was once more to feel, and experience proof, that the Master he betrayed had divine power. There seems to me much probability in this last idea. v6.—[As soon then as He had said, etc.] I cannot doubt that the thing here related was a great miracle. I have not the slightest sympathy with Alford and others, who try to explain it away partially, by reminding us of the awe and reverence which a great and good man sometimes inspires in inferior minds. Such an explanation will never account for the fact here recorded,— that the band of Roman soldiers and the servants of the priests, in fact the whole body of armed men who came to seize on our Lord, "went backward and fell on the earth," on hearing our Lord say, "I am He." The Roman soldiers, especially, knew nothing about our Lord, and had no cause to fear Him. The only reasonable account of the event is that it was a miracle. It was an exercise for the last time of that same Divine power by which our Lord calmed the waves, stilled the winds, cast out devils, healed the sick, and raised the dead. And it was a miracle purposely wrought at this juncture, in order to show the disciples and their enemies that our Lord was not taken because He could not help it, or crucified because He could not prevent it; but because He was willing to suffer and die for sinners. He came to be a willing sufferer for our sins, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. (Comp. Matthew 26:53.) The effect of the miraculous influence put forth by our Lord, seems to have been that the party who came to seize Him were for a little time struck down to the ground, like men struck down, but not killed, by lightning, and rendered so helpless that our Lord and His disciples might easily have escaped. How long they lay on the ground we are not told, but there certainly seems to be some pause at the end of the verse. It seems clear to me that the miracle saved the disciples from being taken prisoners, and so far awed the party of Judas that they were satisfied to seize our Lord only, and either intentionally let the eleven go, or, in their fear of some further display of miraculous power, neglected them, and gave them time to escape. That it also made the whole party of Judas without excuse, is equally clear. They could never say they had no evidence of our Lord's divine power. They had felt it in their own persons. Burgon sees in this incident something which recalls to mind the prophetic words of the Psalmist: "When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell." (Psalms 27:2.) Augustine remarks, "What shall He do when He comes to judge, who did this when about to be judged? What shall be His might when He comes to reign, who had this might when He was at the point to die?" The effort of some to lessen the miraculous character of this circumstance, by quoting such a case as the classical story of the soldier being daunted by the appearance of the Roman General Cains Marius, is weak and evasive. A whole cohort of Roman soldiers would not fall down without miraculous interference. If not a miracle, the event is utterly inexplicable and contrary to experience. v7.—[Then asked He them again, etc.] Our Lord repeats His question, as if to test the effect of the miraculous exhibition of power which He had just given to His enemies. But they were hardened, like Pharaoh and the Egyptians under the miraculous plagues of Egypt. As soon as they rose from the ground, they proved, that though frightened, they were not turned from their purpose. They still seek to take Jesus of Nazareth. v8.—[Jesus answered...I am He.] The dignity and calmness of our Lord at this point are very striking. Knowing full well all the insults and barbarous usage about to begin in a few minutes, He repeats His declaration. "I am He whom you seek. Behold Me: here I am, ready to surrender myself into your hands." [If therefore...Me...let them...way.] The tender thoughtfulness of our Lord for His weak disciples is strikingly shown in this sentence. Even at this trying moment He thought more of others than of Himself. "If I alone am the person you seek to make prisoner, if your commission is to seize Me only, then let these my followers go away, and do not harm them." Once more, we need not doubt that miraculous power accompanied these words, and that insensibly a restraint was laid upon our Lord's enemies, so that they felt obliged to let the disciples escape. The tender sympathy and consideration of our great High Priest for His people come out very beautifully in this place, and would doubtless be remembered by the eleven long afterwards. They would remember that the very last thought of their Master, before He was made a prisoner, was for them and their safety. Christ's protecting power over all His believing people is plainly taught in this passage. Jansenius remarks, that to this saying we may attribute the safety of Peter, though he smote with the sword and got inside the high priest's palace, and of John, though he stood by the cross. Besser quotes a saying of Luther, that this was as great a miracle as that of casting the party to the ground. To tie the hands of the party of Judas and prevent them touching His disciples, was a mighty exercise of Divine power. v9.—[That the saying might be fulfilled, etc.] In this verse we have one of those parenthetical comments or explanations which are so often found in John's Gospel. He reminds us that our Lord's interference to secure the safety of His disciples at this crisis was a fulfilment in fact of His expression in prayer, "none of them is lost." Some persons see a difficulty here, and object that in the prayer our Lord speaks of eternal salvation, while here He is only speaking of temporal safety. Yet there seems no solid ground for the objection. Our Lord's preservation of His disciples included the means as well as the end. One means of preserving them from making shipwreck of the faith altogether, was to keep them from being tempted above what they could bear. Our Lord knew that they would be so tempted, and that their souls were not strong enough to bear the trial. If they had been taken prisoners and brought before Caiaphas and Pilate, with Himself, their faith would have failed entirely. He therefore provides for their escape, and overrules the plans of His enemies, so, that the eleven were "let go." And thus He literally carried out what He had mentioned in prayer. He prevented any of them being lost. They would have been lost, so far as man's eye can judge, if He had not provided a way of escape, and prevented them being tempted beyond their strength. The care of Jesus over His people provides the means of perseverance and continuance in the faith, as well as the great end of eternal salvation. Chrysostom remarks, "By loss He doth not here mean temporal death, but eternal." Calvin remarks, "The Evangelist does not speak merely of their bodily life, but means that Christ, sparing them for a time, provided for their eternal salvation. Consider how great their weakness was. What do we think they would have done alone, if brought to the test? Christ did not choose they should be tried beyond the strength He had given, and rescued them from eternal destruction." It seems to me most probable that at this point of the history the "kiss" of Judas and His "Hail Master" come in. At any rate it is difficult to suppose that Judas could have kissed our Lord, when He first "went forth," and surprised the band by meeting them. There does not seem time for the salutation, nor does it seem probable that Judas would first kiss our Lord and then fall to the ground. Nor does the repeated answer of the band to the question "Whom seek ye?" give the idea that they had as yet recognized our Lord, or had any sign from Judas. I give this as my own conjecture, and admit that the matter is doubtful. But I must think that as soon as the band of soldiers recovered their presence of mind, Judas came forward and kissed our Lord, and then the capture took place. This is the order of events maintained by Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Gerhard, Jansenius, Lightfoot, Stier, and Alford. v10.—[Then Simon Peter having a sword, etc.] The event here mentioned is recorded by all the four Gospel-writers, but John alone gives the name of Peter as the striker, and of Malchus as the person struck. The reason commonly assigned for this is probably correct. John's Gospel was written long after the other three, when Peter and Malchus were both dead, and their names could, therefore, be safely mentioned. Peter's impetuous temperament comes out in the action before us. Impulsive, earnest, zealous, and inconsiderate of consequences, he acted hastily, and his zeal soon cooled down and was changed into fear. It is not those who are for a time most demonstrative and fervent, whose religion is deepest. John never smote with the sword; but John never denied his Lord, and was at the foot of the cross when Christ died. The use of the article "the" before "servant" would seem to indicate that Malchus was some person well-known as an attendant of Caiaphas. Whether the ear was cut off entirely, or only so cut as to hang down by the skin, may be left to conjecture. In any case we know that it gave occasion for the last miracle of bodily cure which our Lord ever wrought. Luke tells us that He "touched" the ear, and it was instantaneously healed. To the very end of His ministry our Lord did good to His enemies, and gave proof of His divine power. But His hardened enemies gave no heed. Miracles alone convert no one. As in the case of Pharaoh, they only seem to make some men harder and more wicked. We cannot doubt that Peter meant to kill Malchus with this blow, which was probably aimed at his head. His own agitation probably, and the special interposition of God, alone prevented him taking away the life of another, and endangering his own life and that of his fellow-disciples. What might have happened if Malchus had been killed, no one can tell. Musculus remarks how entirely Peter seems to have forgotten all his Master's frequent predictions that he would be delivered to the Gentiles and be condemned to death, and acts as if he could prevent what was coming. It was clearly an impulsive act, done without reflection. Zeal not according to knowledge often drives a man into foolish actions, and makes work for repentance. v11.—[Then said Jesus...the sheath.] This was the language of firm and decided rebuke. It was meant to teach Peter, and all Christians in every age, that the Gospel is not to be propagated or maintained by carnal weapons, or by smiting and violence. Matthew adds the solemn words "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." How needful the rebuke, and how true the comment, have often been proved by the history of the Church of Christ. The appeal to the sword can rarely be justified, and has often recoiled on the head of its promoters. The wars of the Protestants on the Continent after the Reformation, and the American war between North and South, furnished melancholy proofs of this. Some of the best Christians have died on battle-fields. Taking the sword, they perished by the sword. John, for wise reasons, does not mention the miraculous healing of Malchus. Burgon takes occasion to remark that even in the hour of our Lord's apparent weakness He gave His enemies a miracle of power and a miracle of mercy,— power in striking them to the ground, mercy in healing. [The cup...Father...given...drink it.] This beautiful saying is peculiar to John's Gospel. It was meant to show our Lord's perfect willingness and readiness to drink the bitter cup of suffering which was before Him. It should always be read in connection with the two other expressions about "the cup" which our Lord had very shortly before used in the garden of Gethsemane. First came the prayer, "If it be possible let this cup pass from Me." Then came the resigned declaration, "If this cup may not pass from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done." And last of all comes the firm and composed assertion of perfect readiness for anything: "Shall I not drink the cup given to Me by my Father?" The three expressions taken together are deeply instructive. They show that our Lord in His agony prayed for relief. They show that His prayer was first answered by His being able to submit entirely to His Father's will. They show that His prayer was finally answered by His being able to show complete willingness to suffer. What an example this is for all believers in the time of trouble! Like our Master we may pray about it, and hope that like Him we shall obtain help by prayer. What a proof this is of our Lord's power to sympathize with suffering believers. He knows their conflicts by experience. The absolute voluntariness of Jesus Christ's suffering for us is nowhere perhaps more remarkably brought out than in this passage. He resents and rebukes the effort of a zealous disciple to repel force by force. He speaks of His sufferings as "a cup" given to Him by His Father, and appointed in the everlasting counsels of the Trinity, and as one which He cheerfully and willingly drinks. "Shall I not drink it? Would you have Me refuse it? Would you prevent my dying for sinners?" It is the more marvellous when we reflect that He who thus willingly suffered was God Almighty as well as man. Nothing can account for the whole scene but the doctrine of atonement and substitution. To the eye of some, our Lord's sufferings were forced on Him by the Jews. Yet when He speaks of them here, He looks far above second causes. He says, His sufferings were "the cup given to Him by the Father." Are not all the sufferings of God's children to be regarded in the same light? Calvin warns us here that while we ought to be ready to drink any cup appointed by our Father, "we must not listen to those fanatics who tell us that we may not seek remedies for diseases and any other kind of distresses, lest we reject the cup presented to us by our heavenly Father." Henry observes on the word "cup" as applied to affliction: "It is but a cup, a small matter comparatively, be it what it will.— It is not a sea, a Red sea, or a Dead sea, for it is not hell; it is light, and but for a moment.— It is a cup that is given us: sufferings are gifts.— It is given us by a Father, by one who has a Father's authority, and does us no wrong,— a Father's affection, and means us no hurt." Bengel remarks that John here evidently pre-supposes the particulars detailed by Matthew about "the cup," named by our Lord in prayer, to be things known by his readers. Paley also notices the expression as one of the undesigned coincidences of Scripture. In this part of John's history of Christ's sufferings, three wonderful things stand out upon the surface of the narrative. To these three let us confine our attention. We should mark, for one thing, the amazing hardness of unconverted men. We see this in the conduct of the men by whom our Lord was taken prisoner. Some of them most probably were Roman soldiers, and some of them were Jewish servants of the priests and Pharisees. But in one respect they were all alike. Both parties saw our Lord's divine power exhibited, when they "went backward, and fell to the ground." Both saw a miracle, according to Luke's Gospel, when Jesus touched the ear of Malchus and healed him. Yet both remained unmoved, cold, indifferent and insensible, as if they had seen nothing out of the common way. They went on coolly with their odious business; "They took Jesus, bound Him, and led Him away." The degree of hardness and insensibility of conscience to which men may attain, when they live twenty or thirty years without the slightest contact with religion, is something dreadful and appalling. God and the things of God seem to sink out of sight and disappear from the mind's eye. The world and the things of the world seem to absorb the whole attention. In such cases we may well believe miracles would produce little or no effect, as in the case before us. The eye would gaze on them, like the eye of a beast looking at a romantic landscape, without any impression being made on the heart. He who thinks that seeing a miracle would convert him into a thorough Christian has got much to learn. Let us not wonder if we see cases of hardness and unbelief in our own day and generation. Such cases will continually be found among those classes of mankind, who from their profession or position are completely cut off from means of grace. Twenty or thirty years of total irreligion, without the influence of Sunday, Bible, or Christian teaching, will make a man's heart hard as the nether mill-stone. His conscience at last will seem dead, buried, and gone. He will appear past feeling. Painful as these cases are, we must not think them peculiar to our own times. They existed under Christ's own eyes, and they will exist till Christ returns. The Church which allows any portion of a population to grow up in practical heathenism, must never be surprised to see a rank crop of practical infidelity. We should mark, for another thing, the amazing condescension of our Lord Jesus Christ. We see the Son of God taken prisoner and led away bound like a malefactor,— arraigned before wicked and unjust judges,— insulted and treated with contempt. And yet this unresisting prisoner had only to will His deliverance, and He would at once have been free. He had only to command the confusion of His enemies, and they would at once have been confounded. Above all He was One who knew full well that Annas and Caiaphas, and all their companions, would one day stand before His judgment seat and receive an eternal sentence. He knew all these things, and yet condescended to be treated as a malefactor without resisting. One thing at any rate is very clear. The love of Christ to sinners is "a love that passeth knowledge." To suffer for those whom we love, and who are in some sense worthy of our affections, is suffering that we can understand. To submit to ill-treatment quietly, when we have no power to resist, is submission that is both graceful and wise. But to suffer voluntarily, when we have the power to prevent it, and to suffer for a world of unbelieving and ungodly sinners, unasked and unthanked,— this is a line of conduct which passes man's understanding. Never let us forget that this is the peculiar beauty of Christ's sufferings, when we read the wondrous story of His cross and passion. He was led away captive, and dragged before the High Priest's bar, not because He could not help Himself, but because He had set His whole heart on saving sinners,— by bearing their sins, by being treated as a sinner, and by being punished in their stead. He was a willing prisoner, that we might be set free. He was willingly arraigned and condemned, that we might be absolved and declared innocent.— "He suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us unto God."— "Though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich."— "He was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." (1 Peter 3:18; 2 Corinthians 8:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21.) Surely if there is any doctrine of the Gospel which needs to be clearly known, it is the doctrine of Christ's voluntary substitution. He suffered and died willingly and unresistingly, because He knew that He had come to be our substitute, and by substitution to purchase our salvation. We should mark, lastly, the amazing degree of weakness that may be found in a real Christian. We see this exemplified in a most striking manner, in the conduct of the Apostle Peter. We see that famous disciple forsaking his Master, and acting like a coward,— running away when he ought to have stood by His side,— ashamed to own Him when he ought to have confessed Him,— and finally denying three times that He knew Him. And this takes place immediately after receiving the Lord's Supper,— after hearing the most touching address and prayer that mortal ear ever heard— after the plainest possible warnings,— under the pressure of no very serious temptation. "Lord," we may well say, "what is man that Thou art mindful of him?" "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall." (1 Corinthians 10:12.) This fall of Peter is doubtless intended to be a lesson to the whole Church of Christ. It is recorded for our learning, that we be kept from like sorrowful overthrow. It is a beacon mercifully set up in Scripture, to prevent others making shipwreck. It shows us the danger of pride and self-confidence. If Peter had not been so sure that although all denied Christ, he never would, he would probably never have fallen.— It shows us the danger of laziness. If Peter had watched and prayed, when our Lord advised him to do so, he would have found grace to help him in the time of need.— It shows us, not least, the painful influence of the fear of man. Few are aware, perhaps, how much more they fear the face of man whom they can see, than the eye of God whom they cannot see. These things are written for our admonition. Let us remember Peter and be wise. After all let us leave the passage with the comfortable reflection that we have a merciful and pitiful High Priest, who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and will not break the bruised reed. Peter no doubt fell shamefully, and only rose again after heartfelt repentance and bitter tears. But he did rise again. He was not left to reap the consequence of his sin, and cast off for evermore. The same pitiful hand that saved him from drowning, when his faith failed him on the waters, was once more stretched out to raise him when he fell in the High Priest's hall. Can we doubt that he rose a wiser and better man? If Peter's fall has made Christians see more clearly their own great weakness and Christ's great compassion, then Peter's fall has not been recorded in vain. ================== Notes— v12.—[Then the band and the captain, etc.] This verse begins the story of our Lord when He was actually in the hands of His deadly enemies. For the first time in His earthly ministry we see Him not a free agent, but submitting to be a passive sufferer, and allowing His foes to work their will. The last miracle had been wrought in vain. Like a malefactor He is seized and put in chains. The "captain" must mean the Roman officer who commanded the "band," cohort, or detachment, which was sent to apprehend our Lord. The "officers" must mean the civil servants of the priest's who accompanied them. The "binding" must mean the putting of chains or handcuffs on our Lord's arms and wrists. v13.—[And led Him away to Annas, etc.] This is a fact which is mentioned by no Gospel-writer except John. The explanation of it is probably something of this kind. In the time when our Lord Jesus was on earth, the office of the high priest among the Jews was filled up with the utmost disorder and irregularity. Instead of the high-priest being high priest for life, he was often elected for a year or two, and then deposed, and his office given to another. There were often living at one time several priests who had served the office of high priest, and then ceased to hold it, like sheriffs or mayors among ourselves. In the case before us, Annas appears, after ceasing to be high priest himself, to have lived in the same palace with his son-in-law Caiaphas, and to have assisted him as an assessor and adviser in the discharge of his duties, which from his age and official experience he would be well qualified to do. Remembering this, we may understand our Lord being "led away to Annas first," and then passed on by him to Caiaphas. So intimate were the relations between the two, that in Luke 3:2 we are told that "Annas and Caiaphas were high-priests." In Acts 4:6, Annas is called "the high priest." Yet it is very certain that Caiaphas was the acting high priest the year that our Lord was crucified. John distinctly asserts it. The gross inconsistency of the Jews in making such ado about the law of Moses, while they permitted and tolerated such entire departures from its regulations about the high priest's office, is a curious example of what blindness unconverted men may exhibit. As to there being two high priests at the same time, we must in fairness remember that even in holy David's time "Zadok and Abiathar were the priests." (2 Samuel 20:25.) The gross irregularity in our Lord's time consisted in making the high priest's office an annual one. The object of the Jews in bringing our Lord before the high priest and in the Sanhedrim first, is very plain. They wished to convict him of heresy and blasphemy, and then after that to denounce him to the Romans. Augustine thinks that Caiaphas arranged that our Lord should be taken to Annas first, because he was his father-in-law. He also thinks that these two held the office of high-priest, each in his turn, year by year. Calvin thinks that our Lord was only taken to Annas first, because his house happened to be convenient, till the high priest and council assembled. Cyril and Musculus think that Annas was the contriver and designer of all done against Christ. Cyril here interposes the verse which in most Bibles comes in as twenty-fourth: "Annas at once sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest." Luther, Flacius, and Beza, incline to approve of this. But it is fair to say that there is great lack of authority for this change. Many commentators think that Jesus was taken to Annas first, by way of exhibiting to that old "enemy of all righteousness" the triumphant success of the attempt to capture the prisoner, whom the Sanhedrim had agreed to slay. They think that he was just shown to Annas, and then passed on to Caiaphas. But I cannot think this probable. I hold, with Alford and Ellicott, that our Lord was examined by Annas. Cornelius á Lapide suggests that Annas was very likely the person with whom Judas bargained to betray our Lord for money; and that when the capture was effected, Judas brought the prisoner to the house of Annas, and remained there to claim his price, after Annas had seen Him. He observes with some acuteness that Judas does not appear after this in the history of the examination of our Lord. Lightfoot quotes a Jewish writer, who says that "in the second temple, which only stood four hundred and twenty years, there were in that time more than three hundred high-priests!" Henry remarks, "It was the ruin of Caiaphas that he was highpriest that year, and so became a ringleader in putting Christ to death. Many a man's advancement has lost him his reputation; and he would not have been dishonoured if he had not been preferred and promoted." v14.—[Now Caiaphas was he, etc.] This verse contains one of John's peculiar explanatory comments, and as such comes in parenthetically. It is as though he said, "Let us not forget that this was the very Caiaphas, who after the raising of Lazarus, had said publicly that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. Behold how he is made the unconscious instrument of bringing that saying to pass, though in a widely different sense from that which he intended!" Calvin compares him to Balaam. Let us note how the great wicked men of this world— the Sennacheribs and Neros, and bloody Marys, and Napoleons— are used by God as His saws and axes and hammers to do His work and carry out the building of His Church, though they are not themselves in the least aware of it. Indeed Caiaphas helps forward the one great sacrifice for the sins of the world! v15.—[And Simon Peter followed Jesus.] The first flight and running away of the disciples is passed over entirely by John. He simply mentions that Peter followed his Master, though at a distance, lovingly anxious to see what was done to Him, yet not bold enough to keep near Him like a disciple. Any one can see that the unhappy disciple was under the influence of very mixed feelings. Love made him ashamed to run away and hide himself. Cowardice made him afraid to show his colours, and stick by his Lord's side. Hence he chose a middle course,— the worst, as it happened, that he could have followed. After being self-confident when he should have been humble, and sleeping when he ought to have been praying, he could not have done a more foolish thing than to flutter round the fire, and place himself within reach of temptation. It teaches the foolishness of man when his grace is weak. No prayer is more useful than the familiar one: "Lead us not into temptation." Peter forgot it here. [And so did another disciple.] This would be more literally rendered, "the other disciple." The opinion of many commentators is, that this disciple was John. Precisely the same expression is used in four successive verses (John 20:2-4, and John 20:8), where John is clearly referred to. This is the view of Chrysostom, Cyril, Alford, Wordsworth, and Burgon. Chrysostom and Cyril observe that it was John's humility that made him conceal his name both here and elsewhere. Here he would not proclaim that he stood while Peter fell. Ferus suggests that the presence of a disciple is mentioned in order to show that John saw with his own eyes all that went on at our Lord's examination. [That disciple...known...priest.] How and in what manner this acquaintance originated we are not told, nor is there any clue to a knowledge of it. On the face of things it certainly seems strange that a humble Galilean fisherman, like John, should be personally known to Caiaphas! On the other hand we must not forget that every devout Jew went up to Jerusalem at the three great feasts; and on these occasions might easily become acquainted with the high priest; and the more likely to get acquainted, if a conscientious and godly man. Moreover we must remember that John was once a disciple of John the Baptist, and that there was a time when "Jerusalem and all Judea" attended on John's ministry. Acquaintance might have been formed then. Some have thought that John's calling as a fisherman might easily bring him into communication with the family of Caiaphas, when he visited Jerusalem on business. All these, it must be confessed, are only conjectures; and it is perhaps the safest to admit our ignorance. Enough for us to read that the high-priest knew John; but why and how we cannot tell. Hengstenberg suggests an explanation, which is so singular that I think it best to give it in his own words: "The character of John leads to the obvious supposition that his acquaintance with the high priest rested on religious grounds. Searching for goodly pearls, John had earlier sought from the high priest what, after the intervening ministry of the Baptist, he found in Christ. With what eyes he had formerly regarded the position of high priest, is shown by the fact that though a disciple of Christ, he nevertheless assigned to the word of the high priest a prophetic significance. (John 11:51.) John, by his internally devout nature, had so attracted the good-will of the high priest, that he did not wholly cast him off even after he had gone over to the true High Priest. Nor had John entirely abandoned Caiaphas. Real love cannot be so easily rooted from the heart; and it is characteristic of John to retain a pious regard to earlier relations. In the love which hopeth all things, he might hope yet to win the high priest to Christ." I make no comment on this extraordinary suggestion. I can not see the slightest warrant for it; but others, perhaps, who like the Athenians love new things, may see more in it than I can. After all, it is only fair to remember that Augustine, Gerhard, Calovius, Lightfoot, Lampe, and many others, think it quite uncertain who this disciple, "known to the high priest," was. Grotius and Poole think it may have been the master of the house where Jesus had the Lord's Supper. Toletus thinks it was one of those to whom the garden belonged. Bengel thinks it was Nicodemus. One German commentator suggests that it was Judas Iscariot. Calvin thinks it most improbable that a proud high priest would have known so mean a person as a fisherman. Yet, singularly enough, Gualter and others lean strongly to the theory that John's business as a fisherman may have made him acquainted with the high priest. It certainly is rather remarkable that when John was brought before Annas and Caiaphas shortly after, they do not appear to have known much of him, except that he was unlearned and ignorant, and had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13.) The question, "who it was," is one which will probably never be settled. [And went in with Jesus...Pilate...priest.] This sentence would seem to indicate that John went together with our Lord, either by His side, or in the crowd around Him, from the garden where He was taken, to the house of Annas and Caiaphas. We can hardly doubt that at first he fled, when we read, "All forsook Him and fled;" but we must suppose that he soon turned back, and mixed with the multitude escorting our Lord, which he might easily do by night, and amidst the confusion of the whole event. It is noteworthy that some think the houses of Caiaphas and Annas were adjacent, and that "the hall" was common to both of them. I am strongly disposed to think that this is a correct view, and a remembrance of it may help us over several difficulties in the narrative of the four evangelists when compared. v16.—[But Peter stood...door without.] This seems to indicate that at first Peter stood outside the door of the palace, not daring to go in. It is a little detail in the story of his fall which the three other Gospel-writers omit to mention. Again we see in him the mixture of good and bad feelings, cowardice and love contending for the mastery. Happy would it have been for him if he had stayed outside the door! Rollock remarks that when Peter found the door shut, he ought not to have stood there, but gone away. "It was by God's providence the door was shut. He got a warning then to leave off, but would not. These impediments, cast in our way when we purpose to do a thing, should not be idly looked at, but should make us carefully try the deed, whether it be lawful." [Then went out that other...brought in Peter.] Here we see how Peter got inside the palace. It was through the mistaken, though well-meant, kindness of John. He must have seen through the door, when it occasionally opened, the well-known figure of his brother disciple, and with the best intentions got him admission. It is plain that John must have been well known to the household of the high priest, or else we should not be told that he had only to speak to the door-keeper, to get admission for Peter. Let us mark what mistakes even the best believers may make in dealing with their brethren. John thought it would be a kind and useful thing to bring Peter into the high priest's house. He was perfectly mistaken, and was unintentionally one link in the chain of causes which led to his fall. People may harm each other with the best intentions. Quesnel remarks, "Men sometimes imagine they do a considerable piece of service to their friends who are clergymen, by introducing them to the great; and thereby they undesignedly expose them to sin and eternal damnation." v17.—[Then saith...damsel...door...Peter.] Those who are best acquainted with Jewish customs say that it was a common practice to employ women as door-keepers. Thus a damsel named Rhoda went to the gate, when Peter knocked at the door of Mary's house in Jerusalem, after his miraculous escape from prison. (Acts 12:13.) It is the same in large houses in Paris to this very day. [Art not thou...I am not.] This was the first trial of Peter's faith and courage. A woman asks him a simple question. There is nothing to show that she does it in a threatening manner, as if she desires to harm him. But at once the Apostle's courage breaks down. He answers with a direct lie: "I am not."— How little we know our own hearts! Twelve hours before Peter would have told us this lie was impossible. "Is Thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?"— Why this door-keeper should have asked the question we know not. Perhaps Peter's dress and appearance, like a Galilean fisherman of the very same stamp and style as John, made her guess that, like John, he was a disciple.— Perhaps Peter's manner and demeanour made her guess it. There may have been agitation, anxiety, fear in the apostle's countenance.— Perhaps the woman may have seen him in Jerusalem in company with Jesus.—Perhaps the mere fact that John knew him, and asked her to admit him, made her assume that he was a friend of John, and like John a disciple of Christ.— Perhaps the Galileans were marked men, not often seen in high priests' houses, and known to be specially favourable to the cause of Jesus of Nazareth.— Any one of these solutions, or all, may be correct. In any case the woman only asked a simple question, and perhaps from no other motive than curiosity, and at once the great apostle falls into sin. How weak we are, when left to reap the consequence of self-confidence, and laziness, and neglect of prayer. Even an apostle, we see, could tell a cowardly lie. Chrysostom observes, "What sayest thou, Peter? Didst not thou declare but now, 'I will lay down my life for Thee'? What hath happened then that thou canst not endure the questioning of a door-keeper? Is it a soldier who questions thee? Is it one of those who seized Him? No: it is a mean and abject door-keeper. Nor is the questioning of a rough kind. She saith not, Art thou a disciple of that cheat and corrupter,— but of that man; which was the expression rather of pitying and relenting. But Peter could not bear any of these words. The expression 'Art not thou also' is used because John was already within." Augustine remarks, "Behold that most firm pillar of the Church, touched but by one breath of danger, trembles all over. Where is now that boldness of promising,— that confident vaunting of himself?" Brentius remarks how the impulsive, unstable character of the apostle Peter comes out here. One hour he draws his sword against a whole multitude of armed men. Another hour he is frightened out of his Christian profession, and driven into lying by one woman. v18.—[And...servants...officers...stood there.] This seems to indicate that when Peter entered the hall, he found the common servants, and the higher attendants of the high priest, standing round a fire. It is the plu-perfect tense, "they had stood," or "had been standing there" some little time. [Who had made...fire...coals...cold...themselves.] It is remarked by all travellers in Palestine, that the nights in that country about Easter time, are often so extremely cold that a fire is very acceptable. The servants and officers were in the act of warming themselves when Peter entered. It is worth notice that the Greek word rendered "a fire of coals" is only used here and at John 21:9, in the marvelous account of Jesus appearing to the disciples at the sea of Galilee. Some have thought that the "fire of coals" on that latter occasion was purposely intended by our Lord to remind Peter of his fall. [And Peter stood with them...himself.] The Greek words here would be more literally rendered and "there was among them Peter, standing and warming himself." The tense is imperfect, and conveys the idea of continuous action for a little time. The apostle stood among the crowd of his Master's enemies, and warmed himself like one of them, as if he had nothing to think of but his bodily comfort; while his beloved Master stood in a distant part of the hall, cold, and a prisoner. Who can doubt that Peter, in his miserable cowardice, wished to appear one of the party who hated his Master, and thought to conceal his real character by doing as they did? And who can doubt that while he warmed his hands he felt cold, wretched, and comfortless in his own soul! "The backslider in heart is filled with his own ways." (Proverbs 14:14.) How many do as others do, and go with the crowd, while they know inwardly they are wrong! Cyril suggests that Peter wished to conceal his discipleship by warming himself, and trying to look comfortable among the high priest's servants. v19.—[The high-priest...asked...disciples...doctrine.] This verse describes the first judicial examination that our Lord underwent. He was questioned concerning "His disciples,"— that is, who they were, how many, what position they occupied, and what were their names. And concerning "His doctrine,"— that is, what were the principal points or truths of His creed, what were the peculiar things He called on man to believe. The object of this preliminary inquiry seems manifest. It was meant to elicit some admission from our Lord's mouth, on which some formal charge of heresy and blasphemy before the Sanhedrim might be founded. There are two grave difficulties growing out of this verse both of which require consideration. (a) Who was the "High Priest" in this verse? Most commentators think it was Caiaphas. He alone is called by John "the high priest," that same year in which Jesus was crucified. Some few think it was "Annas," because John says Jesus was brought to him. (John 18:13.) This at first sight seem the plain meaning of the narrative, and is confirmed by John 18:24. Yet this theory is open to the serious objection, that it makes John call Annas the high priest, and that it makes John omit altogether our Lord's examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim. Yet notwithstanding all these difficulties, I own to the opinion that this is the true view of the history. Augustine, Chrysostom, Casaubon, Ferus, Besser, Stier, Alford, and Ellicott maintain this view, but most of the commentators do not. We must remember that "Annas" is distinctly called "the High Priest" in Acts 4:6, and this probably before the year of the crucifixion had completely run out. Even in David's time Zadok and Ahimelech are called "the priests" (2 Samuel 8:17), as if both were high priests. (b) What was the examination recorded in this verse? It seems to be one entirely passed over by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They only record what took place before Caiaphas, which, on the other hand, is a part of the history passed over by John. It seems a kind of preliminary inquiry, intended to prepare the case for the Sanhedrim. In spite therefore of the common opinion, I decidedly hold the theory, that the examination here related is only described by John. It seems moreover to have been an examination conducted by Annas only, and quite of a separate character from that which took place at "day-break" before the whole Sanhedrim. This at any rate seems to my mind by far the most reasonable account of the passage, and the difficulties in the way of any other interpretation appear to me insuperable. Ellicott remarks, "It only requires the simple and reasonable supposition that Annas and Caiaphas occupied one common official residence, to unite their testimony, and to remove many of the difficulties with which this portion of the sacred narrative is specially marked. Be this as it may, we can scarcely doubt, from the clear statement in John's Gospel, that a preliminary examination, of an inquisitorial nature, in which our Lord was questioned, perhaps conversationally, about His followers and His teaching, and which the brutal conduct of one attendant present seems to show was private and informal, took place in the palace of Annas. There too, it would seem, we must place the three denials of Peter." v20.—[Jesus answered him, etc.] This verse contains a calm, dignified statement from our Lord, of the general course of His ministry. He had done nothing in a clandestine or underhand way. He had always spoken openly "to the world," and not confined His teaching to any one class. He had always taught publicly in synagogues, and in the temple where the Jews resorted. He had said nothing privately and secretly, as if He had any cause to be ashamed of it. The verse is mainly remarkable for the strong light it throws on our Lord's habit of teaching throughout the three years of His ministry. It shows that He was eminently a public teacher,—kept back no part of His message from any class of the population,—and proclaimed it with equal boldness in every place. There was nothing whatever of reserve about His Gospel. This is His own account, and we therefore know that it is correct. "I have spoken in the most public manner, and taught in the most public places, and done nothing in a corner," Calvin remarks, "When Jesus says that He spoke nothing in secret, this refers to the substance of His doctrine, which was always the same, though the form of teaching it was various." We should observe that our Lord did not refuse to use the synagogue and the temple on account of the corruption of the Jewish Church! Four times we read in John of our Lord being at Jerusalem at the feasts (John 2:13, John 5:1, John 7:14, John 10:22), and each time speaking in the temple. v21.—[Why askest thou Me, etc.] This verse is a remonstrance against the gross injustice of Annas's line of examination. Our Lord appeals to him whether it is reasonable, and just, and fair to call upon a prisoner to criminate himself, and to supply evidence which may be used against himself. "Why dost thou, the judge, ask information of Me, the prisoner, about my disciples and my doctrine? Ask rather of those who have heard Me teach and preach, what I have said to them. These know well, and can tell you what things I have said." Cyril thinks there may be a reference here to those servants of the priest, who were sent on a former occasion to take Jesus, and returned, saying, "Never man spake like this Man." (John 7:46.) The boldness and dignity of our Lord's reply to Annas in this verse are very noteworthy. They are an example to all Christians of the courageous and unflinching tone which an innocent defendant may justly adopt before the bar of an unrighteous judge. "The righteous is bold as a lion." The wide difference between the language of our Lord here, and that which He uses before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim, as recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is very remarkable. It affords strong additional evidence that we are reading an account of an examination of a more private kind before Annas, quite distinct from that which took place before Caiaphas. The careful reader of the other three Gospels cannot fail to observe that not a word of all this is recorded in them. Bengel and Stier think that the expression, "these," points to the people there in the court, hearing and standing by. v22.—[And when He had thus spoken, etc.] This verse mentions an event which John alone has recorded. One of the attendants standing by rudely interrupts our Lord by striking Him, and coarsely taxing Him with impertinence and disrespect in so speaking, as He had spoken, to the high-priest. The Greek words literally rendered, mean "gave a blow on the face;" but whether with the palm of the hand, or with a stick, cannot be determined. The marginal reading renders it quite uncertain. Some see in the action a fulfillment of the prophecy, "They shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek." (Micah 5:1.) Stier remarks that this was the first blow which the holy body of Jesus received from the hands of sinners. We may learn from this circumstance what a low, degraded, and disorderly condition the Jewish courts of Ecclesiastical law must have been in at this period, when such a thing as publicly striking a prisoner could take place, and when violence could be shown to a prisoner in a full court of justice for answering boldly for himself. It supplies strong evidence of the miserably fallen state of the whole Jewish nation, when such an act could be done under the very eyes of a judge. Nothing is a surer index of the real condition of a nation than the conduct of its courts of justice, and its just or unjust treatment of prisoners. The sceptre had clearly fallen from Judah, and rottenness was at the core of the nation, when the thing mentioned in this verse could happen. Our Lord's assailant evidently held that a prisoner must never reply to his judge, however unjust or corrupt the judge might be. Theophylact suggests that the man who struck our Lord was one who had heard our Lord preach, and was now anxious to free himself from the suspicion of being one of His friends. There is a striking resemblance between the treatment our Lord received here, and the treatment which Latimer, Ridley, Rogers, and other English martyrs, received at their examination before the Popish bishops. Hutcheson remarks, "Corrupt masters have generally corrupt servants." v23.—[Jesus answered him, etc.] Our Lord's reply to him who smote is a calm and dignified reproof. "If I have spoken wickedly, bear witness in a just and orderly way becoming a court of law; but do not strike Me. If on the contrary I have spoken well, what reasonable cause canst thou allege for striking Me either here or out of court?" Let us note that our Lord's conduct at this point teaches that His maxim, "If anyone smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39), is a maxim which must be taken with reserve, and is not of unlimited application. There may be times when, in defense of truth and for the honour of justice, a Christian must firmly protest against violence, and publicly refuse to countenance it by tame submission. Augustine observes, "Our Lord here showed that His great precepts of patience are to be put in practice, not by outward show of the body, but by preparedness of heart. Visibly to present the other cheek is no more than an angry man can do. How much better then that with mild answer he speak the truth, and with tranquil mind endure worse outrages." v24.—[Now Annas had sent Him...Caiaphas...priest.] This verse undoubtedly contains a difficulty. Most commentators seem to think that it states a fact which ought to come in after the thirteenth verse; and that the questioning and smiting of the last four verses took place before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim, and not before Annas. Some think that up to this point John only describes what took place before Annas; and that he entirely passes over all that took place before Caiaphas, as being well known to his readers. The question is undoubtedly rather a puzzling one, and there is much to be said on both sides. On the one hand, it seems curious that the examination of our Lord before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim should be so completely omitted by John in his Gospel, as it must be, if we take the highpriest of the nineteenth verse to be Annas. On the other hand, we cannot see why John should so carefully mention our Lord being "led to Annas first," if after all Annas did not examine Him at all, and sent Him at once to Caiaphas. If I must give an opinion, I must say that I agree with Stier, Ellicott, and Alford, and consider that this twenty-fourth verse describes our Lord's first appearance before Caiaphas,— that for some wise reason John entirely omits, and silently passes over, our Lord's examination before the Sanhedrim,— and that the examination of the nineteenth and four following verses was a kind of private, preliminary examination before Annas, which Matthew, Mark, and Luke entirely omit. My grounds for this conclusion are as follows:— (a) The whole tone of John's narrative would make any ordinary reader suppose that Annas, and not Caiaphas, was the examiner and high-priest of the nineteenth verse. The story reads straight on upon this theory; while upon the other it is most awkward and seemingly contradictory, and the twenty-fourth verse seems to come in at the wrong place. (b) The tone of the high-priest's examination in John, is entirely different from that of the other three Gospels, and so also are our Lord's answers. (c) There is nothing uncommon in John omitting something which is fully recorded in the other three Gospels. The institution of the Lord's Supper is an example. His Gospel was eminently supplementary. Writing later than the others, he was specially inspired to dwell at great length on the examination of Jesus before Pilate the Gentile ruler, and to say comparatively little about the proceedings in the Jewish courts. (d) Last, but not least, the Greek of the twenty-fourth verse cannot fairly and honestly bear the sense which our translators have put upon it. They have really strained the words to make the sense square with their evident interpretation. The word "sent" is not a pluperfect at all in the Greek! The verse literally translated is, "Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high-priest." It is rather "did then send Him," than "now had sent Him." The natural sense that any ordinary reader would put on it is, that "Annas having asked our Lord about His disciples and His doctrine, and having found by His reply that he could make nothing of Him, did then send Him bound to Caiaphas." As to what THEN took place before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim John tells us NOTHING, and leaves us to learn it from Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Such are my reasons for the view which I adopt. If the reader does not think them valid, he must regard the twenty-fourth verse as one of John's parenthetical explanations or comments, and carry the true place of the fact mentioned backwards to verse thirteenth; and must suppose that the examination of our Lord in the nineteenth and four following verses is the examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim, and only another part of what Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe!— Not least, he must suppose that "did send" in the twenty-fourth verse, means "had sent" some time before! Chrysostom says, "Annas questioned Jesus about His doctrine; and having heard Him, sent Him to Caiaphas; and he having in his turn questioned Him, and discovered nothing, sent Him to Pilate." v25.—[And Simon Peter stood...warmed himself.] This would be more literally rendered, "was standing and warming himself." The expression seems to indicate, that all the time during which Annas was questioning and examining our Lord, Peter was standing by the fire in another part of the hall, and warming himself comfortably among the enemies of our Lord, like one of them. May not the light of the fire, as it burned up, have made Peter's face and appearance more easily recognizable? [They said...Art not thou...disciple?] Here comes Peter's second trial. After a time, when the fire had burned up, and men could see better and felt more warm, they looked at Peter standing among them, and recognizing either by his dress and talk that he was a Galilean, or suspecting by his anxious manner that he was a friend of our Lord, they asked him plainly, "Art thou not one of this prisoner's disciples?" We see what trials people bring on themselves by going where they ought not. [He denied it...I am not.] A second time we find the unhappy Apostle telling a lie, and this time it is added emphatically, "he denied it." The further a backslider goes, the worse he becomes. The first time he seems to have said quietly, "I am not." The second time he flatly "denies." Even an apostle can fall into being a liar! Bloomfield suggests that Peter heard our Lord's examination, and was terrified at hearing inquiry made about His disciples. This, he supposes, hastened his fall. v26.—[One of the servants, etc., etc.] Here comes Peter's last trial. Attention seems to have been roused by his strong denial, and eyes were fixed on him. And the one who had seen him in the garden, and marked him as a forward man among the disciples by his using the sword, presses home the painful question, "Did not I see thee?" v27.—[Peter then denied again.] This denial, we know from the other Gospels, was more loud and emphatic than any, and was made with cursing and swearing! The further a man falls, the heavier his fall. Calvin remarks on the course of a backslider, "At first the fault will not be very great; next, it becomes habitual; and at last, after the conscience has been laid asleep, he who has accustomed himself to despise God will think nothing unlawful, but will dare to commit the greatest wickedness." Henry remarks, "The sin of lying is a fruitful sin, and therefore exceeding sinful. One sin needs another to support it, and that needs another." [And immediately the cock crew.] There was nothing uncommon in this, of course. Every one knows that cocks crow at night. But the bird's familiar crow no doubt sounded in Peter's ear like a clap of thunder, because it awoke him to a sense of his sin and his fall. It will be noted that for wise reasons John says nothing about Peter's weeping, or about our Lord turning and looking at him, or about Peter going out. He seems to have left the hall when the cock crew, without any attempt being made to detain him. This too MAY have been the overruling work of his gracious Master. As long as the world stands, Peter's fall will be an instructive example of what even a great saint may come to if he neglects to work and pray,— of the mercy of Christ in restoring such a backslider,— and of the honesty of the Gospel writers in recording such a history. Let it never be forgotten that Peter's fall is one of those few facts which all four Gospel writers carefully record for our learning. The verses we have now read contain four striking points, which are only found in John's narrative of Christ's passion. We need not doubt that there were good reasons why Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not inspired to record them. But they are points of such deep interest, that we should feel thankful that they have been brought forward by John. The first point that we should notice is the false conscientiousness of our Lord's wicked enemies. We are told that the Jews who brought Christ before Pilate would not go into "the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover." That was scrupulosity indeed! These hardened men were actually engaged in doing the wickedest act that mortal man ever did. They wanted to kill their own Messiah. And yet at this very time they talked of being "defiled," and were very particular about the passover! The conscience of unconverted men is a very curious part of their moral nature. While in some cases it becomes hardened, seared, and dead, until it feels nothing; in others it becomes morbidly scrupulous about the lesser matters of religion. It is no uncommon thing to find people excessively meticulous about the observance of trifling forms and outward ceremonies, while they are the slaves of degrading sins and detestable immoralities. Robbers and murderers in some countries are extremely strict about confession, and absolution, and prayers to saints. Fastings and self-imposed austerities in Lent, are often followed by excess of worldliness when Lent is over. There is but a step from Lent to Carnival. The attendants at daily services in the morning are not infrequently the patrons of balls and theaters at night. All these are symptoms of spiritual disease, and a heart secretly dissatisfied. Men who know they are wrong in one direction, often struggle to make things right by excess of zeal in another direction. That very zeal is their condemnation. Let us pray that our consciences may always be enlightened by the Holy Ghost, and that we may be kept from a one-sided and deformed Christianity. A religion that makes a man neglect the weightier matters of daily holiness and separation from the world, and concentrate his whole attention on forms, sacraments, ceremonies, and public services, is to say the least, very suspicious. It may be accompanied by immense zeal and show of earnestness, but it is not sound in the sight of God. The Pharisees paid tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and compassed sea and land to make proselytes, while they neglected "judgment, mercy, and faith." (Matthew 23:23.) The very Jews who thirsted for Christ's blood were the Jews who feared the defilement of a Roman judgment hall, and made much ado about keeping the passover! Let their conduct be a beacon to Christians, as long as the world stands. That religion is worth little which does not make us say, "I esteem all Thy commandments concerning all things to be right, and I hate every false way." (Psalms 119:128.) That Christianity is worthless which makes us compound for the neglect of heart religion and practical holiness, by an extravagant zeal for man-made ceremonies or outward forms. The second point that we should notice in these verses, is the account that our Lord Jesus Christ gives of His kingdom. He says, "My kingdom is not of this world." These famous words have been so often perverted and wrested out of their real sense, that their true meaning has been almost buried under a heap of false interpretations. Let us make sure that we know what they mean. Our Lord's main object in saying "My kingdom is not of this world," was to inform Pilate's mind concerning the true nature of His kingdom, and to correct any false impression he might have received from the Jews. He tells him that He did not come to set up a kingdom which would interfere with the Roman Government. He did not aim at establishing a temporal power, to be supported by armies and maintained by taxes. The only dominion He exercised was over men's hearts, and the only weapons that His subjects employed were spiritual weapons. A kingdom which required neither money nor servants for its support, was one of which the Roman Emperors need not be afraid. In the highest sense it was a kingdom "not of this world." But our Lord did not intend to teach that the kings of this world have nothing to do with religion, and ought to ignore God altogether in the government of their subjects. No such idea, we may be sure, was in His mind. He knew perfectly well that it was written, "By Me kings reign" (Proverbs 8:15), and that kings are as much required to use their influence for God, as the meanest of their subjects. He knew that the prosperity of kingdoms is wholly dependent on the blessing of God, and that kings are as much bound to encourage righteousness and godliness, as to punish unrighteousness and immorality. To suppose that He meant to teach Pilate that, in His judgment, an infidel might be as good a king as a Christian, and a man like Gallio as good a ruler as David or Solomon, is simply absurd. Let us carefully hold fast the true meaning of our Lord's words in these latter days. Let us never be ashamed to maintain that no Government can expect to prosper which refuses to recognize religion, which deals with its subjects as if they had no souls, and cares not whether they serve God, or Baal, or no God at all. Such a Government will find, sooner or later, that its line of policy is suicidal, and damaging to its best interests. No doubt the kings of this world cannot make men Christians by laws and statutes. But they can encourage and support Christianity, and they will do so if they are wise. The kingdom where there is the most industry, temperance, truthfulness, and honesty, will always be the most prosperous of kingdoms. The king who wants to see these things abound among his subjects, should do all that lies in his power to help Christianity and to discourage irreligion. The third point that we should notice in these verses is the account that our Lord gives of His own mission. He says, "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." Of course we are not to suppose our Lord meant that this was the only end of His mission. No doubt He spoke with special reference to what He knew was passing through Pilate's mind. He did not come to win a kingdom with the sword, and to gather adherents and followers by force. He came armed with no other weapon but "truth." To testify to fallen man the truth about God, about sin, about the need of a Redeemer, about the nature of holiness,— to declare and lift up before man's eyes this long lost and buried "truth,"— was one great purpose of His ministry. He came to be God's witness to a lost and corrupt world. That the world needed such a testimony, He does not shrink from telling the proud Roman Governor. And this is what Paul had in view, when he tells Timothy, that "before Pontius Pilate Christ witnessed a good confession." (1 Timothy 6:13.) The servants of Christ in every age must remember that our Lord's conduct in this place is meant to be their example. Like Him we are to be witnesses to God's truth, salt in the midst of corruption, light in the midst of darkness, men and women not afraid to stand alone, and to testify for God against the ways of sin and the world. To do so may entail on us much trouble, and even persecution. But the duty is clear and plain. If we love life, if we would keep a good conscience, and be owned by Christ at the last day, we must be "witnesses." It is written, "Whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38.) The last point that we should notice in these verses is the question that Pontius Pilate addressed to our Lord. We are told that when our Lord spoke of the truth, the Roman Governor replied, "What is truth?" We are not told with what motive this question was asked, nor does it appear on the face of the narrative that he who asked it waited for an answer. It seems far more likely that the saying was the sarcastic, sneering exclamation of one who did not believe that there was any such thing as "truth." It sounds like the language of one who had heard, from his earliest youth, so many barren speculations about "truth" among Roman and Greek philosophers, that he doubted its very existence. "Truth indeed! What is truth?" Melancholy as it may appear, there are multitudes in every Christian land whose state of mind is just like that of Pilate. Hundreds, it may be feared, among the upper classes, are continually excusing their own irreligion by the specious plea that, like the Roman Governor, they cannot find out "what is truth." They point to the endless controversies of Romanists and Protestants, of High Churchmen and Low Churchmen, of Churchmen and Dissenters, and pretend to say that they do not understand who is right and who is wrong. Sheltered under this favorite excuse, they pass through life without any decided religion, and in this wretched, comfortless state, too often die. But is it really true that truth cannot be discovered? Nothing of the kind! God never left any honest, diligent inquirer without light and guidance. Pride is one reason why many cannot discover truth. They do not humbly go down on their knees and earnestly ask God to teach them.— Laziness is another reason. They do not honestly take pains, and search the Scriptures. The followers of unhappy Pilate, as a rule, do not deal fairly and honestly with their consciences. Their favorite question,— What is truth?— is nothing better than a pretense and an excuse. The words of Solomon will be found true as long as the world stands: "If thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." (Proverbs 2:4-5.) No man ever followed that advice and missed the way to heaven. ================== Notes— v28.—[Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas.] A careful reader of the Gospels will not fail to observe here, that John entirely passes over the examination before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim of the Jews, which is so fully described by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Specially he omits our Lord's confession, when adjured, that He was the Christ. He takes it all for granted, as a thing well known, and passes on to dwell on His far more important examination before Pilate, the Roman Governor. In this he brings out many striking particulars, which, for wise reasons, Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not record. Writing, as John did, long after the other three, and writing more especially for Gentile readers, we can well understand that he would give far more prominence to the proceedings before the Gentile Governor, than to those before the Jewish Ecclesiastical Court. Yet it cannot be denied that there is a remarkable curtness and brevity in his statement of facts at this point. The Greek is literally they "lead,"— in the present tense. [Unto the hall of judgment.] This is a Latin word, and admits of two views. The marginal reading, according to Schleusner and Parkhurst, is the correct translation. It is the "Governor's palace," rather than the hall of judgment. According to Josephus, the prζtors, or governors of Judζa, who ordinarily lived at Cζsarea, when they were at Jerusalem, used Herod's palace, in the upper part of the city, as their residence. Some say it was the famous tower of Antonia. [And it was early.] The precise time here meant we cannot exactly tell. It cannot have been so early as day-break, because we are specially told by Luke that the elders and chief priests and the Sanhedrim assembled to examine our Lord "as soon as it was day." (Luke 22:66.) Considering that the day begins at the equinox about six, we may assume that "early" cannot mean sooner than seven or eight o'clock. [And they went not...judgment hall...defiled.] The meaning of this sentence is, that the Jews would not go within the walls of Pilate's palace, lest by so doing they should contract ceremonial uncleanness. Pilate was a Gentile. Peter says in the Acts, "It is unlawful for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation." (Acts 10:28.) If the Jews had gone inside Pilate's house, they would have been made ceremonially unclean, and would have considered themselves defiled. The sentence is an extraordinary example of the false scrupulosity of conscience which a wicked man may keep up, about forms and ceremonies and trifling externals in religion, at the very time when he is deliberately committing some gross and enormous sin. The notorious fact that Italian bandits and murderers will make much of fasting, keeping Lent, confession, absolution, Mary worship, saint worship, and image worship, at the very time when they are arranging robberies and assassinations, is an accurate illustration of the same principle. The extent to which formality and wickedness can go side by side is frightful, and little known. The Jews were afraid of being defiled by going into a Gentile's house, at the very moment when they were doing the devil's work, and murdering the Prince of life!— Just so, many people in England will attach immense importance to fasting and keeping Lent and attending saints'-day services, while they see no harm in going to races, operas, and balls, at other times! Persons who have very low notions about the Seventh Commandment, will actually tell you that it is wrong to be married in Lent! The very same persons who totally disregard Sunday abroad will make much ado about saints'-days at home! Absurd strictness about Lent, and excess of riot and licentiousness in carnival, will often go together. Chrysostom remarks, "Though they had taken up a deed which was unlawful, and were shedding blood, they are scrupulous about the place, and bring forth Pilate unto them." Augustine remarks, "O impious blindness! They would be defiled, forsooth, by a dwelling which was another's, and not be defiled by a crime which was their own. They feared to be defiled by the pr�torium of an alien judge, and feared not to be defiled by the blood of an innocent brother." Bishop Hall remarks, "Woe unto you priests, scribes, elders, hypocrites! can there be any roof so unclean as that of your own breasts? Not Pilate's walls, but your own hearts, are impure. Is murder your errand, and do you stick at a local infection? God shall smite you, ye whited walls! Do you long to be stained with blood— with the blood of God? And do ye fear to be defiled with the touch of Pilate's pavement? Doth so small a gnat stick in your throats, while ye swallow such a camel of flagitious wickedness? Go out of Jerusalem, ye false disbelievers, if ye would not be unclean! Pilate hath more cause to fear, lest his walls should be defiled with the presence of such prodigious monsters of iniquity." Poole remarks, "Nothing is more common than for persons over zealous about rituals to be remiss about morals." [That...eat...passover.] This sentence contains an undeniable difficulty. How could the Jews eat the passover now, when our Lord and His disciples had eaten it the evening before? That our Lord would eat the passover at the right time we may assume as a matter of course, and that time was Thursday evening. What then can be meant by the chief priests, and elders, and leaders of the Jews, eating the passover on Friday? This is a question which has received various answers. (a) Some think that in our Lord's time the whole Jewish Church had fallen into such disorder, and had so fallen away from original purity, that the passover was not kept strictly according to the primary institution, and might be eaten on almost any day within the passover feast. (b) Some think that it was considered allowable to eat the passover at any time between sunset one day and sunset the next day, so long as it was eaten within the twenty-four hours. (c) Some think that the passover eating here mentioned was not the eating of the passover lamb, but the eating of the passover feast, called "chagigah," which took place every day during the passover week.— This is Lightfoot's view. (d) Some think that as there is no law without an exception, and even the law of the passover admitted of alteration in case of necessity (see Numbers 9:11), so the chief priests persuaded themselves that as they had been occupied by duty— the duty (forsooth!) of apprehending our blessed Lord— throughout the night when they ought to have kept the passover, they were justified in deferring it till the next day. All these, it must be confessed, are only conjectures. There is probably some explanation which, at this distance of time, we are unable to supply. For the present the third and fourth suggestions seem to me the most reasonable. Chrysostom observes, "Either John calls the whole feast the passover, or means that they were then keeping the passover; while Jesus delivered it to His followers one day sooner, reserving His own sacrifice for His preparation day, when also of old His passion was celebrated." One thing at any rate is very plain and noteworthy. The chief priests and their party made much ado about eating the passover lamb and keeping the feast, at the very time when they were about to slay the true Lamb of God, of whom this passover was a type! No wonder that Samuel says, "To obey is better than sacrifice." (1 Samuel 15:22.) Bullinger calls attention here to the wide difference between inward sanctification of the heart, and outward sanctimoniousness about forms, ordinances, and ceremonies. Calvin remarks, that it is one mark of hypocrisy, "that while it is careful in performing ceremonies, it makes no scruple of neglecting matters of the highest importance." v29.—[Pilate then went out...said, etc.] This "going out" means that Pilate hearing that the chief priests had brought a prisoner to the courtyard, or open space before his palace, and knowing from experience, as a governor of Judζa, that they would not come into his palace for fear of defilement, but waited for him to come out to them, went out and spoke to them. His first question is one which became his office as a magistrate and judge. He inquires what is the charge or accusation brought against the prisoner before him. "Of what crime do you accuse this man?" The well-known Valerian law among the Romans made it unlawful to judge or condemn any one without hearing the charge against him stated. v30.—[They answered and said, etc.] The reply of the chief priests to Pilate's inquiry, as given by John, is peculiar and elliptical. They began by saying that the prisoner was a convicted evil-doer according to their law, or else they would not have brought Him there. They had found Him, by examination before the Sanhedrim, to be a breaker of the law, and they only came there to have sentence pronounced on Him by Pilate. "If He were not a person guilty and worthy of death, we would not have delivered Him up to thee. We have discovered Him to be such a person, and we now ask thee to sentence Him to death. We have convicted Him, and we ask thee, as our chief ruler, to slay Him." There is a proud, haughty, supercilious tone, we may remark, about this answer, which was not likely to please a Roman Governor. It is plain, by a comparison with Luke's Gospel, that at this point the Jews added a statement which John has omitted. "If thou wouldest know the precise nature of this prisoner's evil-doing, we tell thee that we found Him perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cζsar, and saying that He is a King." (Luke 23:2.) Why John omitted this we cannot tell, but he evidently takes it for granted that his readers knew this accusation was made, by telling us in verse thirty-three, that Pilate asked Him if He was "the King of the Jews." Tholuck remarks, that "if the authorities had not regarded the prisoner as worthy of death, they would not have brought him to the procurator, as none but criminal cases needed confirmation by him." v31.—[Then said Pilate...take...judge...law.] This sentence indicates a desire on Pilate's part to have nothing to do with the case. From the very first he evidently wished to put it away from him, and, if he could, to avoid condemning our Lord. How this feeling originated, we cannot tell. Matthew and Mark say that he knew Jesus was delivered to him from "envy." Matthew says that his wife warned him to have nothing to do with that "just person." (Matthew 27:18; Matthew 27:19; Mark 15:10.) It is quite possible that the fame and character of Jesus had reached Pilate's ears long before He was brought before him. It is hard to suppose that such miracles as our Lord wrought, would never be talked of within the palace of the chief ruler of Judζa. The raising of Lazarus must surely have been reported among his servants. Our Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, attended by myriads of people shouting, "Blessed is the King," must surely have been noted by the soldiers and officers of Pilate's guard. Can we wonder that all this made him regard our Lord with something like awe? Wicked men are often very superstitious. His language now before us is that of one who would gladly evade the whole case, and leave the responsibility entirely with the Jews. "If He is, as you say, a malefactor, take Him into your hands, and condemn Him to death according to your own law. Do as you like with Him; but do not trouble me with the case." The word we render "judge," is literally much stronger in sense. It is rather condemn to death. The only punishment the Jews might inflict, if any (which is more than doubtful), was death by stoning. The pitiable and miserable character of Pilate, the Roman Governor, begins to come into clear light from this point. We see him a man utterly destitute of moral courage,— knowing what was right and just in the case before him, yet afraid to act on his knowledge,— knowing that our Lord was innocent, yet not daring to displease the Jews by acquitting Him,— knowing that he was doing wrong, and yet afraid to do right. "The fear of man bringeth a snare." (Proverbs 29:25.) Wretched and contemptible are those rulers and statesmen whose first principle is to please the people, even at the expense of their own consciences, and who are ready to do what they know to be wrong rather than offend the mob! Wretched are those nations which for their sins are given over to be governed by such statesmen! True godly rulers should lead the people, and not be led by them, should do what is right and leave consequences to God. A base determination to keep in with the world at any price, and a slavish fear of man's opinion, were leading principles in Pilate's character. There are many like him. Nothing is more common than to see statesmen evading the plain line of duty, and trying to shuffle responsibility on others, rather than give offence to the mob. This is precisely what Pilate did here. The spirit of his reply to the Jews is, "I had rather not be troubled with the case: cannot you settle it yourselves, without asking me to interfere?" Ellicott remarks, "It seems clear that from the first the sharpsighted Roman perceived that this was no case for his tribunal, that it was wholly a matter of religious difference and religious hate, and that the meek prisoner who stood before him was at least innocent of the political crime laid to his charge with such an unwonted and suspicious zeal." He also quotes the just and pertinent remark of a German writer, "Pilate knew too much of Jewish expectations to suppose that the Sanhedrim would hate and persecute one who would free them from Roman authority." Calvin thinks that Pilate said this ironically, as he would not have allowed them to inflict capital punishment. Gerhard also regards the saying as sarcastic and sneering. "If this prisoner has done anything against your Jewish superstitions, settle it yourselves." Yet a comparison with Luke makes this rather improbable in my opinion. The Jews there tell him plainly that Christ made Himself a King. (Luke 23:2.) This, even a Roman must allow, was a serious charge. Henry suggests that perhaps Pilate thought they did not really want to kill Jesus, but only to chastise Him. [The Jews...not lawful for us...death.] This answer of the Jews completely defeated the wretched Pilate's attempt to put away the case before him, and avoid the necessity of judging our Lord. They reminded the Roman Governor that the power of taking away life was no longer in their hands, and that it was impossible for them to do as he suggested, and settle our Lord's case in their own way. Let us mark here what a striking confession the Jews here made, whether they were aware of it or not. They actually admitted that they were no longer rulers and governors of their own nation, and that they were under the dominion of a foreign power. They were no longer independent, but subjects of Rome. He that has power of condemning to death, and taking away the life of a prisoner, he is the governor of a country. "It is not lawful for us," said the Jews, "to take away life. You, the Roman Governor, alone can do it, and therefore we come to thee about this Jesus." By their own mouth and their own act they publicly declared that Jacob's prophecy was fulfilled, that "the sceptre had departed from Judah," that they had no longer a lawgiver of their own stock, and that consequently the time of Shiloh, the promised Messiah, must have come. (Genesis 49:10.) How unconscious wicked men are that they fulfil prophecy! The idea of Chrysostom and Augustine, that the sentence only means that the Jews could not put any one to death during the passover feast, appears to me utterly improbable. v32.—[That the saying...fulfilled, etc.] This verse is one of John's peculiar parenthetical comments, which are so frequent in his Gospel. Here, as in many other instances, the meaning is, "By this the saying of Jesus was fulfilled;" and not "The thing took place, in order that the saying might be fulfilled." What precise saying is referred to, is a point on which commentators have not quite agreed. (a) Some think, as Theophylact, Bullinger, Musculus, and Gerhard, that John refers to the saying recorded in this very Gospel (John 12:33); and that the expression, "what death," only refers to the particular manner of His death by crucifixion. (b) Others think, as Augustine, Calvin, and Beza, that John refers to the fuller saying in Matthew 20:19, where our Lord foretells His own delivery to the Gentiles as well as His crucifixion. Of the two views, the second seems to me the preferable one. The previous verse distinctly points to the inability of the Jews to put Jesus to death, and the necessity of the Gentiles doing the murderous work. And John remarks that this was just what Jesus had predicted,— that He would die by the hand of the Gentiles. I think, at the same time, that the crucifixion was probably included, being the death which the Gentiles inflicted, in contradistinction to the Jewish custom of stoning. v33.—[Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall.] The meaning of this must be that Pilate, disappointed in his attempt to put away the case from him, retired into his palace again, where he knew the Jews would not follow him, from fear of contracting ceremonial defilement, and resolved to have a private interview with our Lord, and examine Him alone.— It is quite clear that the conversation which follows, from this point down to the middle of Joh 18:38, took place within the Roman Governor's walls, and most probably without the presence of any Jewish witnesses. If that was so, the substance of it could only have been revealed to John by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Pilate's soldiers and a few guards of the prisoner may have been present. But it is highly improbable that John, or any friend of our Lord's, could have got inside the Governor's palace. If the beloved Apostle did manage to get in and hear the conversation, it is a striking example of his attachment to his Master. "Love is strong as death." (Song of Son 8:6.) [And called Jesus.] This expression literally means, that he called Jesus with a loud voice to follow him inside the palace; and came out of the outer court, or area, where he had first met the party which had brought the Prisoner to him. It is as though he said, "Come in hither, Prisoner, that I may speak with thee privately!" [And said,...art Thou...King...Jews?] The first question that Pilate asked of our Lord, was whether he really admitted that He was what the Jews had just accused Him of being. "Tell me, is it true that Thou art the King of the Jews? Dost Thou really profess to be the King of this ancient people, over whom I and my soldiers are now rulers?"— It is far from improbable that Pilate, living so long in Jerusalem, may have often heard of the old Jewish kings, and of the dominion they received. It is far from unlikely, moreover, that he thought it possible he had before him one of those mock Messiahs, who, like Theudas, rose up at this period, and kept the minds of the Jews in agitation. "They accuse Thee of setting up Thyself as a King. Art Thou really a King? Dost Thou lay claim to any royal authority?" The humble attire and lowly appearance of our Lord can hardly fail to have struck Pilate. "Can it be true that Thou, a poor man, with no signs of a kingdom about Thee, art the King of the Jews?" In order to estimate aright this question which Pilate put, we must remember that Suetonius, the Roman historian, distinctly says that a rumour was very prevalent throughout the East at this period, that a King was about to arise among the Jews, who would obtain dominion over the world. This singular rumour, originating no doubt from Jewish prophecies, had of course reached Pilate's ears, and goes far to account for his question. It is noteworthy that each of the four Gospel writers distinctly records that this was the first question that Pilate put to our Lord. It seems to show that the chief thing impressed on the mind of Pilate about Jesus, was that He was a King. As a King he examined Him, as a King he sentenced Him, and as a King he crucified Him. And one main object that he seems to have had in view in questioning our Lord, was to ascertain what kind of a kingdom He ruled over, and whether it was one that would interfere with the Roman authority. On the whole, the question seems a mixture of curiosity and contempt. v34.—[Jesus answered him, Sayest thou, etc.] Our Lord's motive in this answer to Pilate was probably to awaken Pilate's conscience: "Dost thou say this of thine own independent self, in consequence of any complaints thou hast heard against Me as a seditious person? Or dost thou only ask it because the Jews have just accused Me of being a King? Hast thou, during all the years thou hast been a Governor, ever heard of Me as a leader of insurrection, or a rebel against the Romans? If thou hast never heard anything of this kind against Me, and hast no personal knowledge of my being a rebel, oughtest thou not to pay very little attention to the complaint of my enemies? Their bare assertion ought not to weigh with thee." Grotius paraphrases the verse thus: "Thou hast been long a ruler, and a careful defender of the Roman majesty. Hast thou ever heard anything that would impeach Me of a desire to usurp authority against Rome? If thou hast never known anything of thyself, but others have suggested it, beware lest thou be deceived by an ambiguous word." There is undoubtedly some little obscurity around the verse, and it becomes us to handle it reverently. It certainly looks like an appeal to the Roman Governor's conscience. "Before I answer thy question let Me ask thee one. For what reason and from what motive art thou making this inquiry about my being a King? Canst thou say, from thy own personal knowledge, that thou hast ever heard Me complained of as setting up a kingdom? Thou knowest thou canst not say that. Art thou only asking Me because thou hast heard the Jews accuse Me of being a King to-day? If this is so, judge for thyself whether such a King as I appear to be is likely to interfere with thy authority." Poole says, "Our Saviour desired to be satisfied from Pilate, whether he asked Him as a private person for his own satisfaction, or as a judge, having received any such accusation against Him. If he asked Him as a judge, he was bound to call others to prove what they had charged Him with." Burgon remarks that Jesus did not need information in asking this question. He asked, as the Lord asked Adam, "Where art thou?" (Genesis 3:9) in order to arouse Pilate to a sense of the shameful injustice of the charge. v35.—[Pilate answered, etc.] The answer of Pilate exhibits the haughty, high-minded, supercilious, fierce spirit of a Roman man of the world. So far from responding to our Lord's appeal to his conscience, he fires up at the very idea of his knowing anything of the current opinions about Christ.— "Am I a Jew? Thinkest thou that a noble Roman like me knows anything about the superstitions of Thy people. I only know that Thine own countrymen, and the very leaders of Thy nation, have brought Thee unto me as a prisoner worthy of death. What they mean I do not pretend to understand. But I suppose there is some ground for their accusation. Tell me plainly what Thou hast done." Pilate's answer seems tantamount to an acknowledgment that he knew nothing against our Lord. But as He had been brought before him as a prisoner, and he was pressed to condemn Him, he asks Him what He has done to bring this hatred of the Jews upon Him. He that would know the depth of scorn contained in that sentence, "Am I a Jew?" should mark the contemptuous way in which Horace, Juvenal, Tacitus, and Pliny speak of the Jews. Stier remarks, "The Romans were only concerned with what was DONE; not with dreams, like the Jews; nor with wisdom, like the Greeks." Pilate's question was characteristic of his nation. v36.—[Jesus answered...kingdom...not...world.] In this famous sentence our Lord begins His answer to Pilate's question, "Art Thou the King of the Jews?" "Thou askest whether I am a King. I reply that I certainly have a kingdom, but it is a kingdom entirely unlike the kingdoms of this world. It is a kingdom which is neither begun, nor propagated, nor defended by the power of this world, by the world's arms or the world's money. It is a kingdom which took its origin from heaven, and not from earth,— a spiritual kingdom,— a kingdom over hearts and wills and consciences,— a kingdom which needs no armies or revenues,— a kingdom which in no way interferes with the kingdoms of this world." The literal rendering of the Greek would be "out of this world." But it evidently means "belonging to, dependent on, springing from, connected with." It is the same preposition that we find in John 8:23 : "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this World." That the above was our Lord's plain meaning, when He spoke the words before us, is to my mind as evident as the sun at noonday. The favourite theory of certain Christians that this text forbids Governments to have anything to do with religion, and condemns the union of Church and State, and renders all Established Churches unlawful, is, in my judgment, baseless, preposterous, and utterly devoid of common-sense. Whether the union of Church and State be right or wrong, it appears to me absurd to say that it is forbidden by this text. The text declares that Christ's kingdom did not spring from the powers of this world, and is not dependent on them; but the text does not declare that the powers of this world ought to have nothing to do with Christ's kingdom. Christ's kingdom can get on very well without them; but they cannot get on very well without Christ's kingdom. The following leading principles are worth remembering, in looking at this vexed question:— (a) Every Government is responsible to God, and no Government can expect to prosper without God's blessing. Every Government therefore is bound to do all that lies in its power to obtain God's favour and blessing. The Government that does not strive to promote true religion, has no right to expect God's blessing. (b) Every good Government should endeavour to promote truth, charity, temperance, honesty, diligence, industry, chastity among its subjects. True religion is the only root from which these things can grow. The Government that does not labour to promote true religion cannot be called either wise or good. (c) To tell us that a Government must leave religion alone, because it cannot promote it without favouring one church more than another, is simply absurd. It is equivalent to saying that, as we cannot do good to everybody, we are to sit still and do no good at all (d) To tell us that no Government can find out what true religion is, and that consequently a Government should regard all religions with equal indifference, is an argument only fit for an infidel. In England at any rate a belief that the Bible is true is a part of the Constitution; an insult to the Bible is a punishable offence, and the testimony of an avowed atheist goes for nothing in a court of law. (e) It is undoubtedly true that Christ's kingdom is a kingdom independent of the rulers of this world, and one which they can neither begin, increase, nor overthrow. But it is utterly false that the rulers of this world have nothing to do with Christ's kingdom, may safely leave religion entirely alone, and may govern their subjects as if they were beasts and had no souls at all. Chrysostom says that our Lord's reply meant, "I am indeed a King; but not such a King as thou suspectest, but one far more glorious." [If my kingdom...servants fight...Jews.] Our Lord proceeds to give proof that His kingdom was not of this world, and therefore not likely to interfere with the Roman authority. "If the kingdom of which I am head, were like the kingdoms of this world, and supported and maintained by worldly means, then my disciples would take up arms and fight, to prevent my being delivered to the Jews. This, as thou mayest know by inquiry, is the very thing which I forbade last night. Thine own soldiers can tell thee that they saw Me reprove a disciple for fighting, and heard Me tell him to put up his sword." Let us mark that a religion propagated by the sword, or by violence, is a most unsatisfactory kind of Christianity. The weapons of Christ's warfare are not carnal. Even true Christians who have appealed to the sword to support their opinions, have often found themselves losers by it. Taking the sword, they have perished by the sword. Zwingle dying in battle, and the Scotch Covenanters are examples. Stier thinks that by "my servants" in this verse our Lord meant the angels! This, however, seems very improbable. Bullinger makes some good remarks on this sentence, in reply to the Anabaptists of his time. He says, among other things, "Just as it does not follow that the Church is worldly, because we who are flesh and blood, and are the world, are members of the Church,— so no one, unless he wants common sense, will say that the Church is worldly, because in it Kings and Princes serve God, by defending the good and punishing the bad." Calvin observes that this sentence "does not hinder Princes from defending the kingdom of Christ; partly by appointing external discipline, and partly by lending their protection to the Church against wicked men." Beza says much the same. Hutcheson observes, "This text is not to be understood as if Christ disallowed that they to whom He has given the sword should defend His kingdom therewith; for if magistrates were as magistrates should be, nursing parents to the Church, and ought to kiss the Son, then certainly they may and should employ their power as magistrates for removing idolatry, and setting up the true worship of God, and defending it against violence." [But now...my kingdom not...hence.] The true meaning of this little sentence is not very clear. May it not mean, "Now, in this dispensation, my kingdom is not an earthly one, and is not of this world. A day will come by and by, after my second advent, when my kingdom will be a visible one over the whole earth, and my saints shall rule over the renewed world."— This may seem fanciful to some; but I have a strong impression that it is the true meaning. The adverb "now" is very decided and emphatical. v37.—[Pilate therefore...Art Thou a King?] Here Pilate returns to his question, though he puts it in a different way: "Art Thou in some sense a King, if not such a King as the Kings of this world? Thou speakest of Thy kingdom and Thy servants. Am I to understand that Thou art a King?" We should observe the distinction in the language here, compared with that of Joh 18:33. There it was, "Art Thou the King of the Jews?" Here it is simply, "Art Thou a King?" [Jesus answered, Thou sayest...I am a King.] This sentence is a direct acknowledgment from our Lord's lips that He is a King: a King only over hearts, consciences, and wills, but still a real true King. "Thou sayest," is equivalent to an affirmation. "Thou sayest truly: I am what thou askest about. I admit that I am a King." There can be no doubt that this "is the good confession before Pontius Pilate," which Paul specially impresses on the attention of the timid disciple Timothy, in his pastoral epistle. (1 Timothy 6:13.) [To this end...born...witness...truth.] Here our Lord informs Pilate what was the great end and purpose of His incarnation. "It is true that I am a King, but not a King after the manner of the world. I am only a King over hearts and minds. The principal work for which I came into the world, is to be a witness of the truth concerning God, concerning man, and concerning the way of salvation. This truth has been long hidden and lost sight of. I came to bring it to light once more, and to be the King of all who receive it." I think the "truth" in this sentence must be taken in the widest and fullest sense. The true doctrine about man, and God, and salvation, and sin, and holiness, was almost buried, lost, and gone, when Christ came into the world. To revive the dying light, and erect a new standard of godliness in a corrupt world, which neither Egypt, Assyria, Greece nor Rome could prevent rotting and decaying, was one grand end of Christ's mission. He did not come to gather armies, build cities, amass treasure, and found a dynasty, as Pilate perhaps fancied. He came to be God's witness, and to lift up God's truth in the midst of a dark world. He that would know how miserably small is the amount of truth which even the most civilized nations know without Christianity, should examine the religion and morality of the Chinese and Hindoos in the present day. Some think that "I was born" points to Christ's humanity, and "came into the world," to His divinity. [Every one...of truth...heareth my voice.] I think that in this sentence our Lord tells Pilate who are His subjects, disciples, and followers. "Wouldest thou know who are the members of my kingdom? I tell thee that it consists of all who really love the truth and desire to know more of God's truth. All such hear my voice, are pleased with my principles, and subjects of my kingdom." It is like our Lord's words to Nicodemus: "He that doeth truth cometh to the light." (John 3:21.) Thus our Lord shows Pilate that His kingdom was not an earthly kingdom, that His business was not to wear a crown and found an earthly monarchy, but to proclaim truth; and that His followers were not soldiers and warriors, but all earnest seekers after truth. Pilate therefore might dismiss from his mind all idea of His kingdom interfering with the authority of Rome. Let us note that the position of Christ in the world must be the position of all Christians. Like our Master we must be witnesses for God and truth against sin and ignorance. We must not be afraid to stand alone. We must testify. The expression "every one that is of the truth" is remarkable. It must mean every one that really and honestly desires to know the truth, receives my teaching, and follows Me as a Master. Does it not show that our Lord, when He appeared, gathered round Him all who were true-hearted lovers of God's revealed will, and were seeking, however feebly, to know more of it? (Compare John 3:20; and John 8:47.) That there were many such, like Nathanael, among the Jews, anxiously looking for a Redeemer, we cannot doubt. "These," says our Lord, "are my subjects, and make up my kingdom." Just as when He speaks of Himself as a shepherd, He says, "My sheep hear my voice;" so when He speaks of Himself as God's great witness to truth, He says, "All friends of truth hear my voice." The wise condescension with which our Lord adapts His language to Pilate's habits of thought as a Roman, is very noteworthy. If He had used Jewish figures of speech, drawn from Old Testament language, Pilate might well have failed to understand Him. But every Roman in high position must have heard of the arguments of philosophers about "the truth." Therefore our Lord says, "I am a witness to truth." In speaking to unconverted people, it is wise to use terms which they can understand. Theophylact suggests that here is an appeal to Pilate's conscience: "If you are a real seeker after truth you will listen to Me." v38.—[Pilate saith...What is truth?] This famous question, in my judgment, can only admit of one interpretation. It is the cold, sneering, sceptical interjection of a mere man of the world, who has persuaded himself that there is no such thing as truth, that all religions are equally false, that this life is all we have to care for, and that creeds and modes of faith are only words and names and superstitions, which no sensible person need attend to. It is precisely the state of mind in which thousands of great and rich men in every age live and die. Expanded and paraphrased, Pilate's question comes to this:— "Truth indeed! What is truth? I have heard all my life of various philosophical systems, each asserting that it has found the truth, and each differing widely from the others. Who is to decide what is truth and what is not?"— The best proof that this is the right view of the sentence is Pilate's behaviour when he has asked the question. He does not, as Lord Bacon remarked two centuries ago, wait for an answer, but breaks off the conversation and goes away.— The supposition that he asked a question, as an honest inquirer, with a real desire to get an answer, is too improbable and unreasonable to require any comment. The right way to understand Pilate's meaning is to put ourselves in his place, and to consider how many sects and schools of philosophers there were in the world at the time when our Lord appeared,— some Roman, some Grecian, and some Egyptian,— all alleging that they had got the truth, and all equally unsatisfactory. In short Gallio, who thought Christianity a mere "question of words and names,"— Festus, who thought the dislike of the Jews to Paul arose from "questions of their own superstition,"— and Pontius Pilate, were all much alike. The worldly-minded Roman noble speaks like a man sick and weary of philosophical speculations;— "What is truth indeed? Who can tell?"— Nevertheless truth was very near him. If he had waited he might have learned! Lightfoot alone thinks that Pilate only meant, "What is the true state of affairs? How can one so poor as Thou art be a King? How canst Thou be a King and yet not of this world?" [And when...said this...went out...Jews.] The meaning of this sentence is that Pilate "went out" of the palace, where he had been conversing with our Lord apart from the Jews, and returned to the courtyard, or open space at the gate, where he had left the Jews at the thirty-third verse. He broke off the conversation at this point. Very likely the mention of "truth" touched his conscience, and he found it convenient to go out hurriedly, and cover his retreat with a sneer. A bad conscience generally dislikes a close conversation with a good man. Augustine says, "I suppose that just when Pilate said, 'What is truth?' the Jews' custom, that one should be released at the passover, came into his mind at that instant, and for this reason he did not wait for Jesus to tell him what truth was, that no time might be lost!" This, however, seems rather improbable. [And saith...I find....no fault at all.] In this sentence comes out the true impression of Pilate about our Lord.— "After examining this man I can discern in Him no guilt, and nothing certainly to warrant me in condemning Him to death. He says, no doubt, and does not hesitate to avow it, that He is a King. But I find that His kingdom is not one which interferes with the authority of Cζsar. Such Kings as this we Romans do not care for, or regard as criminals. In short, your charge against Him entirely breaks down, and I am disposed to dismiss Him as not guilty." Our Lord, we may remember, came to be a sacrifice for our sins. It was only fitting that he who was one of the chief agents in killing Him, should publicly declare that, like a lamb without blemish, there was "no fault in Him." v39.—[But ye have a custom, etc.] In this verse we see the cowardly, weak, double-minded character of Pilate coming out. He knows in his own conscience that our Lord is innocent, and that if he acts justly he ought to let Him go free. But he fears offending the Jews, and wants to contrive matters so as to please them. He therefore prepares a plan by which he hoped that Jesus might be found guilty and the Jews satisfied, and yet Jesus might depart unhurt, and his own secret desire to acquit Him be gratified.— The plan was this. The Jews had a custom that at passover time they might obtain from the Roman Governor the release of some notable prisoner. Pilate craftily suggests that the prisoner released this passover should be our Lord Jesus Christ.— "Let us suppose that Jesus is guilty," he seems to say: "I am willing to condemn Him, and declare Him a criminal worthy of death, and a malefactor, in order to please you. But having pronounced Him a guilty criminal, what say you to my letting Him go free, according to the passover custom?"— This cowardly and unjust judge hoped in this way to please the Jews, by declaring an innocent person guilty, and yet at the same time to please himself by getting His life spared. Such are the ways of worldly and unprincipled rulers. Between the base fear of men, the desire to please the mob, and the secret dictates of their own conscience, they are continually doing wicked things, and pleasing nobody at all, and least of all themselves. About this "custom," and when it began, we know nothing. Mark's account would lead us to suppose that as soon as Pilate came out of his palace, the multitude cried out for the usual passover favour to be granted to them. (See Mark 15:8.) Pilate would seem to have caught at the idea at once, and to have suggested that Jesus should be the person released. There seems a latent meaning in Pilate's use of the expression "the King of the Jews." Some think that it is a sneer.— "This miserable, poor, lowly King; will you not have Him let go?"— Others think that Pilate had in view our Lord's claim to be the Messiah. "Would it not be better to release this man who asserts that He is your own Messiah? Would it not be a scandal to your nation to kill Him?"— A desire to release our Lord, side by side with a cowardly fear of offending the Jews by doing what was just and right, runs through all Pilate's dealings. He evidently knows what he ought to do, but does not do it. Henry thinks Pilate must have heard how popular Jesus was with some of the Jews, and must have known of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem a few days before. "He looked on Him as the darling of the multitude, and the envy of the rulers. Therefore he made no doubt they would demand the release of Jesus; and this would stop the prosecution, and all would be well." But he had not reckoned on the influence of the priests over the fickle multitude. v40.—[Then cried they all, etc.] This verse describes the complete failure of Pilate's notable plan, by which he hoped to satisfy the Jews and yet release Jesus. The fierce and bigoted party of Caiaphas would not listen to his proposal for a moment. They declared they would rather have Barabbas, a notorious prisoner in the hands of the Romans, released than Jesus. Nothing would content them but our Lord's death. Barabbas, we know from Luke (Luke 23:19), was a murderer as well as a robber. The Jews were asked to decide whether the holy Jesus or the vile criminal should be let go free and released from prison.— Such was their utter hardness, bitterness, cruelty, and hatred of our Lord, that they actually declare they would rather have Barabbas set free than Jesus! Nothing in short would satisfy them but Christ's blood. Thus they committed the great sin which Peter charges home on them not long after: "Ye denied Jesus in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go.— Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you." (Acts 3:13-14.) They publicly declared that they liked a robber and a murderer better than Christ! The Greek word rendered "cried," signifies a very loud cry or shout. It is the same word that occurs at the raising of Lazarus. "He cried, Lazarus, come forth!" (John 11:43.) The expression "again" must either refer to the loud cries the Jews had raised, when they first brought Jesus to Pilate and demanded His condemnation; or else it must refer to a former cry for Barabbas to be released. According to Matthew they TWICE demanded this, with an interval of time between. (Compare Matthew 27:15-26.) The singularly typical character of all this transaction should be carefully noticed. Even here at this juncture we have a lively illustration of the great Christian doctrine of substitution. Barabbas, the real criminal, is acquitted and let go free. Jesus, innocent and guiltless, is condemned and sentenced to death. So is it in the salvation of our souls. We are all by nature like Barabbas, and deserve God's wrath and condemnation; yet he was accounted righteous, and set free. The Lord Jesus Christ is perfectly innocent; and yet He is counted a sinner, punished as a sinner, and put to death that we may live. Christ suffers, though guiltless, that we may be pardoned. We are pardoned, though guilty, because of what Christ does for us. We are sinners, and yet counted righteous. Christ is righteous, and yet counted a sinner. Happy is that man who understands this doctrine, and has laid hold on it by faith for the salvation of his own soul. In leaving this chapter, it is vain to deny that there are occasional difficulties in harmonizing the four different accounts of our Lord's examination and crucifixion. This of course arises from one Gospel writer dwelling more fully on one set of facts, and another on another. But we need not doubt that all is perfectly harmonious, and that if we do not see it, the reason lies in our present want of perception. If each Evangelist had told the story in precisely the same words, the whole result would have been far less satisfactory. It would have savoured of imposture, concert, and collusion. The varieties in the four accounts are just what might be expected from four honest independent witnesses, and, fairly treated, admit of explanation. Augustine remarks, "How all the Evangelists agree together, and nothing in any one Evangelist is at variance with the truth put forth by another,— this whosoever desires to know, let him seek it in laborious writings, and not in popular discourses, and not by standing and hearing, but by sitting and reading, or by lending a most attentive ear and mind to him that readeth. Yet let him believe, before he knows it, that there is nothing written by any one Evangelist, that can possibly be contrary either to his own or another's narration." Melancthon suggests that the whole history of the passion, in this chapter, is a vivid typical picture of the history of Christ's Church in every age. He bids us observe what a multitude of portraits it contains! Saints both weak and strong,— enemies of many kinds— traitors, hypocrites, tyrants, priests, rulers, mobs, violence, treachery, the flight of friends, the bitter language of foes. What is it but a kind of prophetic history of Christ's Church? The character of Pontius Pilate is so ably drawn out by Ellicott, that it may be well to quote it, in concluding this chapter. "Pilate was a thorough and complete type of the later-Roman man of the world. Stern, but not relentless,— shrewd and world-worn,— prompt and practical,— haughtily just,— and yet, as the early writers correctly observed, self-seeking and cowardly,— able to perceive what was right, but without moral strength to follow it out,— the Procurator of Judζa stands forth a sad and terrible instance of a man whom the fear of endangered self-interest drove not only to act against the deliberate convictions of his heart and conscience, but further to commit an act of cruelty and injustice, even after those convictions had been deepened by warnings and strengthened by presentiment." These verses exhibit to our eyes a wonderful picture, a picture which ought to be deeply interesting to all who profess and call themselves Christians. Like every great historical picture, it contains special points on which we should fix our special attention. Above all, it contains three life-like portraits, which we shall find it useful to examine in order. The first portrait in the picture is that of our Lord Jesus Christ himself. We see the Savior of mankind scourged, crowned with thorns, mocked, smitten, rejected by His own people, unjustly condemned by a judge who saw no fault in Him, and finally delivered up to a most painful death. Yet this was He who was the eternal Son of God, whom the Father's countless angels delighted to honor. This was He who came into the world to save sinners, and after living a blameless life for thirty years, spent the last three years of His time on earth in going about doing good, and preaching the Gospel. Surely the sun never shone on a more wondrous sight since the day of its creation! Let us admire that love of Christ which Paul declares "passeth knowledge," and let us see an endless depth of meaning in the expression. There is no earthly love with which it can be compared, and no standard by which to measure it. It is a love that stands alone. Never let us forget when we ponder this tale of suffering, that Jesus suffered for our sins, the Just for the unjust, that He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities, and that with His stripes we are healed. Let us diligently follow the example of His patience in all the trials and afflictions of life, and specially in those which may be brought upon us by religion. When He was reviled, He reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not, but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously. Let us arm ourselves with the same mind. Let us consider Him who endured such contradiction of sinners without a murmur, and strive to glorify Him by suffering well, no less than by doing well. The second portrait in the picture before us, is that of the unbelieving Jews who favored our Lord's death. We see them for three or four long hours obstinately rejecting Pilate's offer to release our Lord,— fiercely demanding His crucifixion,— savagely claiming His condemnation to death as a right,— persistently refusing to acknowledge Him as their King,— declaring that they had no King but Cζsar,— and finally accumulating on their own heads the greater part of the guilt of His murder. Yet, these were the children of Israel and the seed of Abraham, to whom pertained the promises and the Mosaic ceremonial, the temple sacrifices and the temple priesthood. These were men who professed to look for a Prophet like unto Moses, and a son of David who was to set up a kingdom as Messiah. Never, surely, was there such an exhibition of the depth of human wickedness since the day when Adam fell. Let us mark with fear and trembling the enormous danger of long-continued rejection of light and knowledge. There is such a thing as judicial blindness; and it is the last and sorest judgment which God can send upon men. He who, like Pharaoh and Ahab, is often reproved but refuses to receive reproof, will finally have a heart harder than the nether mill-stone, and a conscience past feeling, and seared as with a hot iron. This was the state of the Jewish nation during the time of our Lord's ministry; and the heading up of their sin was their deliberate rejection of Him, when Pilate desired to let Him go. From such judicial blindness may we all pray to be delivered! There is no worse judgment from God than to be left to ourselves, and given over to our own wicked hearts and the devil. There is no surer way to bring that judgment upon us than to persist in refusing warnings and sinning against light. These words of Solomon are very awful: "Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh." (Proverbs 1:24-26.) Never let it be forgotten, that, like the Jews, we may at length be given up to strong delusion, so that we believe lies, and think that we are doing God service while we are committing sin. (2 Thessalonians 2:11; John 16:2.) The third, and last portrait in the picture before us, is that of Pontius Pilate. We see a Roman Governor,— a man of rank and high position,— an imperial representative of the most powerful nation on earth,— a man who ought to have been the fountain of justice and equity,— halting between two opinions in a case as clear as the sun at noonday. We see him knowing what was right, and yet afraid to act up to his knowledge,— convinced in his own conscience that he ought to acquit the prisoner before him, and yet afraid to do it lest he should displease His accusers,— sacrificing the claims of justice to the base fear of man,— sanctioning from sheer cowardice, an enormous crime,— and finally countenancing, from love of man's good opinion, the murder of an innocent person. Never perhaps did human nature make such a contemptible exhibition. Never was there a name so justly handed down to a world's scorn as the name which is embalmed in all our creeds,— the name of Pontius Pilate. Let us learn what miserable creatures great men are, when they have no high principles within them, and no faith in the reality of a God above them. The meanest laborer who has grace and fears God, is a nobler being in the eyes of his Creator than the King, ruler, or statesman, whose first aim it is to please the people. To have one conscience in private and another in public,— one rule of duty for our own souls, and another for our public actions,— to see clearly what is right before God, and yet for the sake of popularity to do wrong,— this may seem to some both right, and politic, and statesman-like, and wise. But it is a character which no Christian man can ever regard with respect. Let us pray that our own country may never be without men in high places who have grace to think right, and courage to act up to their knowledge, without truckling to the opinion of men. Those who fear God more than man, and care for pleasing God more than man, are the best rulers of a nation, and in the long run of years are always most respected. Men like Pontius Pilate, who are always trimming and compromising, led by popular opinion instead of leading popular opinion, afraid of doing right if it gives offence, ready to do wrong if it makes them personally popular, such men are the worst governors that a country can have. They are often God's heavy judgment on a nation because of a nation's sins. ================== Notes— v1.—[Then Pilate...took Jesus...scourged Him.] The cruel injury inflicted on our Lord's body, in this verse, was probably far more severe than an English reader might suppose. It was a punishment which among the Romans generally preceded crucifixion, and was sometimes so painful and violent that the sufferer died under it. It was often a scourging with rods, and not always with cords, as painters and sculptors represent. Josephus, the Jewish historian, in his "Antiquities," particularly mentions that malefactors were scourged, and tormented in every way, before they were put to death. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible says, that under the Roman mode of scourging, "the culprit was stripped, stretched with cords or thongs on a frame, and beaten with rods." As to Pilate's reason for inflicting this punishment on our Lord, there seems little doubt. He secretly hoped that this tremendous scourging, in the Roman fashion, would satisfy the Jews; and that after seeing Jesus beaten, bleeding, and torn with rods, they would be content to let Him go free. As usual, he was doubleminded, cruel, and deceitful. He tried to please the Jews by ill-treating our Lord as much as possible, and at the same time he hoped to please his own conscience a little by not putting Him to death. He told the Jews, indeed, according to Luke's account, what He wanted: "I will chastise Him and release him." (Luke 23:16.) How entirely this weak design failed we shall see by-and-by. Chrysostom says, "Pilate scourged Jesus, desiring to exhaust and soothe the fury of the Jews. Being anxious to stay the evil at this point, he scourged Him, and permitted to be done what was done, and the robe and crown to be put on Him, in order to relax their anger." Augustine and Cyril say much the same. The importance of this particular portion of our Lord's sufferings is strongly shown by the fact that Isaiah specially says, "by His stripes we are healed;" and that Peter specially quotes that text in his first epistle. (Isaiah 53:5. 1 Peter 2:24.) Our Lord Himself particularly foretold that He would be scourged. (Luke 18:33.) It may seem needless to say that Pilate did not scourge Jesus with his own hands. Any plain reader will at once conclude that the scourging was inflicted by his soldiers or attendants. Yet the venerable Bede thinks that Pilate himself scourged Jesus. And it is worth remembering that a modern sceptical writer has actually argued that the book of Leviticus must be uninspired, because in that book the priest is commanded to lift, and move, and offer up the bodies of slain sacrifices, which alone he could not do! Surely he might have recollected that a man is said to do things, when he does them by the hands of servants and attendants! It was thus, no doubt, that Pilate scourged Jesus. The word "took" probably means, "commanded Him to be seized." Hengstenberg thinks that the remarkable incident of Pilate's "washing his hands" (Matthew 27:24), and declaring his innocence of Christ's blood, comes in between this verse and the preceding chapter. I would rather place it after the fifteenth verse of this nineteenth chapter. The place where this horrible indignity was inflicted on our Lord's holy person (according to Matthew 27:27) was the prζtorium, or common hall, which was probably a kind of guard-room, where the Roman soldiers used to spend their time, and keep themselves in readiness to do anything the Governor wished. What kind of a place the guard-room of a body of rough Roman soldiers can have been we can hardly conceive, even if we visit the worst regimental guard-rooms of modern days. Some think that our Lord was scourged twice; once at the beginning of Pilate's examination, and once after His final condemnation. This however seems to me very doubtful. The idea probably arises from not carefully observing that the proceedings before Pilate, after the scourging recorded here, are peculiar to John's Gospel, and omitted by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Besser remarks, "Before the message, 'Christ our righteousness' was revived, and the Lutheran 'Christ for us' was again the refreshment of weary souls, men could not draw much refreshment from Christ's scourging. Before the Reformation whole hosts of self-bewailing penitents came forth from Italy and spread over Germany. They were called 'Flagellants;' and naked to the waist they roamed through towns and villages, singing penitential hymns like Dies Irζ, and flogging one another." v2.—[And...soldiers...crown...thorns...head.] About the object of the soldiers in this act there can be no doubt. It was done in mockery and ridicule of our blessed Lord, and to pour contempt on the idea of His being a King. These rude men would show how they defied such a King. We can well believe that rough heathen soldiers, like Roman legionaries, were expert and trained by practice in the best way of torturing a prisoner. Thorns, according to Tristram, are so common in Palestine, that the soldiers would have no difficulty in finding materials for weaving this crown. Hasselquist, quoted in Smith's Dictionary, says, "The plant called 'nebk' (zizyphus spina Christi) was very suitable for the purpose, as it has many sharp thorns, and its flexible, pliant, and round branches, might easily be plaited in the form of a crown; and what, in my opinion, seems the greatest proof is, that the leaves most resemble those of ivy, as they are of a very deep green. Perhaps the enemies of Christ would choose a plant like that with which Emperors and Generals used to be crowned, that there might be calumny even in the punishment." How painful and irritating such a crown of thorns would be, sticking into the forehead or head of one whose hands were bound, we can easily imagine. Here, as in every step of Christ's passion, we see His complete and perfect substitution for sinners. He, the innocent sin-bearer, wore the crown of thorns, that we, the guilty, might wear a crown of glory. Vast is the contrast which there will be between the crown of glory that Christ will wear at His second advent, and the crown of thorns which He wore at His first coming. Lightfoot remarks that "it was a most unquestionable token that Christ's kingdom was not of this world, when He was crowned only with thorns and briars, which are the curse of the earth." It was, moreover, a striking symbol of the consequences of the fall being laid on the head of our divine Substitute. In Leviticus it is written that Aaron shall lay his hands "upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the Children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat." (Leviticus 16:21.) History says that in the Crusades, when Godfrey of Bouillon, the Christian General, was made King of Jerusalem, he refused to be crowned with a golden crown,— saying that "it did not become him to wear a crown of gold, in the city where his Saviour had worn a crown of thorns." Rollock observes, "Ye shall find these soldiers even worse inclined than Pilate was. This falls out: if the master command them to do one evil deed, often the servants will do two." When John Huss, the martyr, was brought forth to be burned, they put a paper over his head, on which were pictured three devils, and the title "heresiarch." When he saw it, he said, "My Lord Jesus Christ, for my sake, did wear a crown of thorns: why should not I, therefore, for His sake, wear this ignominious crown?" [And they put...purple robe.] This again was done as a mark of contempt and derision. A mock royal robe was thrown over our Lord's shoulders, in order to show how ridiculous and contemptible was the idea of His kingdom. The colour, "purple," was doubtless meant to be a derisive imitation of the well-known imperial purple, the colour worn by Emperors and Kings. Some have thought that this robe was only an old soldier's cape, such as a guard-house would easily furnish. Some, with more show of probability, have thought that this "robe" must be the "gorgeous robe" which Herod put on our Lord, mentioned by Luke, when he sent Him back to Pilate (Luke 23:11), a circumstance which John has not recorded. In any case we need not doubt that the "robe" was some shabby, cast-off garment. It is worth remembering that this brilliant colour, scarlet or purple, would make our blessed Lord a most conspicuous object to every eye, when He was led through the streets from Herod, or brought forth from Pilate's house to the assembled multitude of Jews.— Once more we should call to mind the symbolical nature of this transaction also. Our Lord was clothed with a robe of shame and contempt, that we might be clothed with a spotless garment of righteousness, and stand in white robes before the throne of God. v3.—[And said, Hail, King of the Jews!] This again was evidently done to pour contempt upon our Lord. The words of the soldiers were spoken in contemptuous imitation of the words addressed to a Roman Emperor, on his assuming Imperial power: "Hail, Emperor! ave Imperator!" It was as much as saying, "Thou a King indeed! Thou and thy kingdom are alike base and contemptible." Hengstenberg observes, "It was the kingdom of the Jews itself that the soldiers laughed at. They regarded Jesus as the representative of the Messianic hope of the Jews. They would turn to ridicule these royal hopes, which were known far in the heathen world, more especially as they aspired to the dominion of the whole earth." Let us not fail to remark at this point that ridicule, scorn, and contempt, were one prominent portion of our blessed Master's sufferings. Any one who knows human nature, must know that few things are more difficult to bear than ridicule, especially when we know that it is undeserved, and when it is for religion's sake. Those who have to endure such ridicule may take comfort in the thought that Christ can sympathize with them; for it is a cup which He Himself drank to the very dregs. Here again He was our Substitute. He bore contempt, that we might receive praise and glory at the last day. Henry remarks, "If at any time we are ridiculed for well-doing, let us not be ashamed, but glorify God; for thus we are partakers of Christ's sufferings." [And they smote...hands.] The words so rendered would be equally well translated, "they gave Him blows with a rod or stick." The same Greek word in the singular is so translated in the marginal reading of Joh 18:22. When we compare Matthew 27:27, Matthew 27:30, where it says the soldiers took a reed and smote Him with it on the head, it seems highly probable that this was the action here recorded. According to Matthew, the soldiers put the reed in our Lord's hand as a mock sceptre; and when, as Lampe observes, "He refused to retain it in His right hand, because He came to suffer indignities, but not to perform them," they snatched it out of His hand, and brutally struck Him with it on the head. This appears to me a reasonable and satisfactory supposition, and makes it most likely that the blow here was not "with the hand." If the blows were inflicted on the head, whether with hand or reed, we can easily conceive what acute bodily pain they might occasion to a head crowned with thorns. The thorns would be driven into the skin, till the blood ran down the face and forehead and neck of our Lord. Truly "He was bruised for our iniquities." (Isaiah 53:5.) v4.—[Pilate therefore went forth, etc.] This verse opens a new scene of the painful story of the passion. The scourging being over, and the mockery of the soldiers having gone on as long as Pilate thought it worth while, the Roman Governor went forth outside the palace where he lived, to the Jews, who were waiting to hear the result of his private interview with our Lord. We must remember that, under the influence of hypocritical scrupulosity, they would not go inside the Gentile Governor's house, lest forsooth they should be "defiled," and were therefore waiting in the court outside. Now Pilate comes out of his palace and speaks to them. The words of the verse seem to show that Pilate came out first, and that our Lord was led out behind him.— "Behold I am bringing Him outside again, that you may know that I can find no fault or cause of condemnation in Him, and no ground for your charge that He is a stirrer up of sedition and a rebel King. He is only a weak, harmless fanatic, who lays claim to no kingdom of this world, and I bring Him forth to you as a poor, contemptible person, worthy of scorn, but not one that I can pronounce worthy of death. I have examined Him myself, and I inform you that I can see no harm in Him." It seems to me quite plain that Pilate's private interview with our Lord had completely satisfied the Governor that He was a harmless, innocent person, and made him feel a strong desire to dismiss Him unhurt; and he secretly hoped that the Jews would be satisfied when they saw the prisoner whom they had accused brought out beaten and bruised, and treated with scorn and contempt, and that they would not press the charge any further. How thoroughly this cowardly double-dealing man was disappointed, and what violence he had to do to his own conscience, we shall soon see. It is very noteworthy that the expression, "I find no fault in Him," is used three times by Pilate, in the same Greek words, in John's account of the passion. (John 18:38; John 19:4-6.) It was meet and right that he who had the chief hand in slaying the Lamb of God, the Sacrifice for our sins, should three times publicly declare that he found no spot or blemish in Him. He was proclaimed a Lamb without spot or fault, after a searching examination, by him that slew Him. v5.—[Then... Jesus forth...thorns...robe.] The language of this sentence appears to me to show that Pilate went outside the palace first, and announced that he was going to bring out the prisoner, and that then our Lord followed him. The word "forth," both in this and the preceding verse, means literally, "outside," or "without." It is the same that is used in the texts, "His brethren stood without" (Matthew 12:46); and "Without are dogs." (Revelation 22:15.) That our blessed Lord, the eternal Word, should have meekly submitted to be led out after this fashion, as a gazing-stock and an object of scorn, with an old purple robe on His shoulders and a crown of thorns on His head, His back bleeding from scourging and His head from thorns, to feast the eyes of a taunting, howling, bloodthirsty crowd, is indeed a wondrous thought! Truly, "though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor." (2 Corinthians 8:9.) Since the world began, the sun never shone on a more surprising spectacle both for angels and men. [And Pilate...Behold the Man.] This famous sentence, so well known as "Ecce Homo," in Latin, admits of two views being taken of it. Pilate may have spoken it in contempt: "Behold the Man you accuse of setting Himself up as a King! See what a weak, helpless, contemptible creature He is."— Or else Pilate may have spoken it in pity: "Behold the poor feeble Man whom you want me to sentence to death. Surely your demands may be satisfied by what I have done to Him. Is He not punished enough?"— Perhaps both views are correct. In any case there can be little doubt that the latent feeling of Pilate was the hope that the Jews, on seeing our Lord's miserable condition, would be content, and would allow Him to be let go. In this hope, again, we shall find he was completely deceived. Pilate probably threw a strong emphasis on the expression "Man," indicative of contempt. This may have led to the Jews saying so strongly, in the seventh verse, that the prisoner "made Himself the Son of God," and claimed to be Divine, and not a mere "man," as Pilate had said. He probably also meant the Jews to mark that He said, "Behold the man," not "your King," but a mere common man. v6.—[When the chief priests...crucify Him.] We see in this verse the complete failure of Pilate's secret scheme for avoiding the condemnation of our Lord. The pitiful sight of the bleeding and despised prisoner had not the effect of softening down the feelings of His cruel enemies. They would not be content with anything but His death, and the moment He appeared they raised the fierce cry, "Crucify Him, crucify Him." Let it be noted that the chief priests were the foremost in raising the cry for crucifixion. It is a painful fact that in every age, none have been such hard, cruel, unfeeling, and bloody-minded persecutors of God's saints, as the ministers of religion. The conduct of Bishop Bonner, in the reign of bloody Mary, towards some of our martyred Reformers, is a melancholy proof of this. The "officers" here mentioned were the attendants, and servants, and immediate followers of the priests, who would naturally take up any cry raised by their masters. The word rendered "cried out," means a loud shout or clamorous cry, and is peculiar to John's account of this part of the passion. It is the same word that is used of our Lord at the grave of Lazarus: "He cried, Lazarus, come forth." (John 11:43.) It is the same that is used of the multitude at Jerusalem, when they would no longer listen to Paul speaking to them on the stairs: "They cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air." (Acts 22:23.) The cry "Crucify" was equivalent to a demand that our Lord might be put to death after the Roman manner. Cyril remarks, "When the multitude would perhaps have blushed with shame at the sight of what had been done, remembering Christ's miracles, the priests are the first to cry out, and so inflame and stir up the mob." He who would know to what an extraordinary degree of bloodthirstiness a mob may be stirred up when once excited, should study the history of the Reign of Terror at Paris, during the first French revolution. [Pilate saith...Take ye...in Him.] This, as Cyril justly argues, is the language of one vexed, and irritated, and made impatient by the pertinacity with which the priests stuck to their point. "Do your bloody work yourselves, if you must needs have it done. Take your prisoner away, and do not trouble me with the case. I find no fault in Him, and I dislike being made your tool in this matter." It seems impossible to put any other construction on Pilate's words. He could not have meant gravely and seriously that he would allow the Jews to put the prisoner to death, and thus admit the precedent of letting them inflict capital punishment. Temper, vexation, and irony, seem to lie at the bottom of His words; and the chief priests seem to have taken his words in this sense. We cannot doubt that they would gladly have taken away our Lord and crucified Him at once, if they had thought Pilate really meant they should do so. For the third time we should notice Pilate's emphatic declaration: "I find no fault in Him." Three times he vainly tried to evade condemning our Lord, or to make the Jews desist from their bloody design: once by asking the Jews to choose between Christ and Barabbas,— once by sending Him to Herod,— once by scourging Him, and exhibiting Him in a contemptible light before the people. Three times he failed utterly. Burkitt remarks, "Hypocrites within the pale of the visible Church may be guilty of such monstrous acts of wickedness, as even the consciences of heathens without the Church may boggle at and protest against." v7.—[The Jews answered him, etc.] In this verse we find the priests taking up a new ground of accusation against our Lord. They saw that their political accusation had failed. Pilate would not condemn Him as a King, and refused to see any fault in Him on that score. They, therefore, charge our Lord with blasphemy, and committing an offence against their law. As to Pilate's ironical words, "Take ye Him and crucify Him," they made no remark on them, as though they knew they were not meant to be taken seriously. The whole sense must be filled up in some such way as this,— "It is no use telling us to crucify this prisoner ourselves, because you well know that it is not lawful for us to put any man to death; but seeing that you will not condemn Him as a political offender, we now charge Him with an offence against our religion, which, as our Governor, you are bound to defend and protect. We call upon you to condemn Him to death for claiming to be the Son of God, which, according to our law, is blasphemy, and a capital crime." This is a lengthy paraphrase, undoubtedly, but one which is necessary, if we would fill up the sense of the verse, and understand what the Jews meant. The "law" referred to by the Jews is probably Leviticus 24:16. But it is curious that "stoning" is the punishment there mentioned, and not a word is said of crucifixion. This they do not tell Pilate. There is, perhaps, more fulness in the expression "a law" than appears at first. It may mean, "we Jews have a law given us by man from God, which is our rule of faith in religion. It is a law, we know, not binding on Gentiles, but it is a law which we feel bound to obey. One of the articles of that law is, that 'He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall be stoned.' We ask that this article may be enforced in the case of this man. He has blasphemed by calling Himself the Son of God, and He ought to be put to death. We, therefore, demand His life." There certainly seems an emphasis in the Greek on the word "we," as if it meant "we Jews," in contradistinction to Gentiles. The expression "He ought" is literally, "he owes it," he is a debtor, he is under an obligation or penalty of death, according to the terms of our code of law. The expression "made Himself," must mean appointed, constituted, or declared Himself the Son of God. Compare Mark 3:14, John 6:15, John 8:53, Acts 2:36, Hebrews 3:2, Revelation 1:6. The expression "Son of God" meant far more to a Jewish mind than it does to us. We see in John 5:18 that the Jews considered that when our Lord said that God was His Father He made Himself "equal with God." See also John 10:33. One thing at any rate is very clear: whatever Socinians may say, our Lord distinctly laid claim to divinity, and the Jews distinctly understood Him to mean that He was God as well as man. Cyril well remarks that if the Jews had dealt justly, they would have told the Gentile ruler that the person before him had not only claimed to be the Son of God, but had also done many miracles in proof of His divinity. Rollock observes, "Look, what blinds them! The Word of God that should make them see, blinds them so that they use it to their ruin. The best things in the world, yea, the Word of God itself, serve to wicked men for nothing else but their induration. The more they read, the blinder they are. And why? Because they abuse the word, and make it not a guide to direct their affections and actions." v8.—[When Pilate...heard...was afraid.] In this verse we see Pilate in a different frame of mind. This new charge of blasphemy against our Lord threw a new light over his feelings. He began to be really frightened and uncomfortable. The thought that the meek and gentle prisoner before him might after all be some superior Being, and not a mere common man, filled his weak and ignorant conscience with alarm. What if he had before him some God in human form? What if it should turn out that he was actually inflicting bodily injuries on one of the Gods? As a Roman he had doubtless heard and read many stories, drawn from the heathen mythology of Greece and Rome, about Gods coming down to earth, and appearing in human form. Perhaps the prisoner before him was one! The idea raised new fears in his mind. Already he had been made very uncomfortable about Him. Our Lord's calm, dignified, and majestic demeanour had doubtless made an impression. His evident innocence of all guilt, and the extraordinary malice of His enemies, whose characters Pilate most likely knew well, had produced an effect. His own wife's dream had its influence. Even before the last charge of the Jews the Roman judge had been awe-struck, and secretly convinced of our Lord's innocence, and anxious to have Him set free, and actually "afraid" of his prisoner. But when he heard of His being the "Son of God," he was made more afraid. Burgon remarks, "Like Gamaliel in the Acts, Pilate was seized with a salutary apprehension, lest haply he be found even to fight against God." The "saying" referred to must mean the expression, "Son of God." The word "more" deserves attention. It shows clearly that from the first Pilate had been "afraid," and uneasy in conscience. He had never liked the case being brought before him at all. To have such an extraordinary preacher, and a worker of such miracles as our Lord, brought to his bar, frightened him. But now when he heard that He laid claim to divinity, he was "more afraid." We must never forget that Pilate, as Roman Governor of Judζa, charged with the management of a most turbulent and troublesome province, was doubtless informed by spies, as well as by the officers of his army, of everything that went on in Judζa. Can we doubt for a moment that he must have heard many accounts of our Lord's ministry, and specially of his miracles and astonishing power over the sick and the dead? Can we doubt that he heard of the raising of Lazarus at Bethany, within a walk of Jerusalem? Remembering all this, we may well suppose that he regarded the whole case brought before him by the Jews with much anxiety from the very first, and we can well understand that when he heard that Jesus was "the Son of God," he was more than ever alarmed. Unprincipled rulers have an uneasy position. Bishop Hall thinks that the cause of Pilate's fear was only the increased rage and excitement of the people. He was afraid of a riot and tumult! v9.—[And went again...judgment hall.] This means, that, on hearing this fresh charge of blasphemy, Pilate retired again from the outside of the palace into the inner part, where he had before conversed with our Lord, once more leaving the Jews outside. This new charge was so serious that he did not care to enter into it publicly, and preferred examining our Lord about it privately. [And saith...Whence art Thou?] This question I think can admit of only one meaning. It meant,— "Who art Thou? What art Thou? Art Thou from heaven? Art Thou one of the gods come down to earth, of whom I have heard the priests talk? What is Thy real nature and history? If Thou art some superior being, more than a common man, tell me plainly, that I may know how to deal with thy case. Tell me privately, while these Jews are not present, that I may know what line to take up with Thine enemies."— We may well believe that Pilate caught at the secret hope that Jesus might tell him something about Himself, which would enable Him to make a firm stand and deliver Him from the Jews. In this hope, again, the Roman Governor was destined to be disappointed. [But Jesus gave him no answer.] Our Lord's silence, when this appeal was made to Him by Pilate, is very striking. Hitherto He had spoken freely and replied to questions; now He refused to speak any more. The reason of our Lord's silence must be sought in the state of Pilate's soul. He deserved no answer, and therefore got none. He had forfeited his title to any further revelation about his prisoner. He had been told plainly the nature of our Lord's kingdom, and the purpose of our Lord's coming into the world, and been obliged to confess publicly his innocence. And yet, with all this light and knowledge, he had treated our Lord with flagrant injustice, scourged Him, allowed Him to be treated with the vilest indignities by his soldiers, and held Him up to scorn, knowing in his own mind all the time that He was a guiltless person. He had, in short, sinned away his opportunities, forsaken his own mercies, and turned a deaf ear to the cries of his own conscience. Hence our Lord would have nothing more to do with him, and would tell him nothing more. "He gave him no answer." Here, as in many other cases, we learn that God will not force conviction on men, and will not compel obstinate unbelievers to believe, and will not always strive with men's consciences. Most men, like Pilate, have a day of grace, and an open door put before them. If they refuse to enter in, and choose their own sinful way, the door is often shut, and never opened again. There is such a thing as a "day of visitation," when Christ speaks to men. If they will not hear His voice, and open the door of their hearts, they are often let alone, given over to a reprobate mind, and left to reap the fruit of their own sins. It was so with Pharaoh, and Saul, and Ahab; and Pilate's case was like theirs. He had his opportunity, and did not choose to use it, but preferred to please the Jews at the expense of his conscience, and to do what he knew was wrong. We see the consequence. Our Lord will tell him nothing more. In saying all this, I think we must not forget that Pilate's wicked refusal to listen to his own conscience, and our Lord's consequent refusal to speak to him any more, were all overruled by the eternal counsels of God to the carrying out of His purpose of redemption. In handling such a point we must speak with reverence. But it is plain that if our Lord had revealed to Pilate who He was, and forced Pilate to see it, the crucifixion might perhaps never have taken place, and the great sacrifice for a world's sins might never have been offered up on the cross. Our Lord's silence was just and well merited. But it was also part of God's counsels about man's salvation. Let us note that there is "a time to be silent," as well as "a time to speak." This is a matter in the social intercourse of daily life, about which we all need to pray for wisdom. To be always saying to everybody everything we know, is not the line of a wise follower of Christ. Let us note that if we do not make a good use of light and opportunities,— and if we resist Christ speaking to our conscience,— a time may come when, like Pilate, we may speak to Christ, and ask things of Him, and He may give us no answer. It is written in a certain place, "They would none of my counsel, they despised all my reproof; therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way." "Then shall they call upon Me, but I will not answer." (Proverbs 1:24-32.) Chrysostom observes, "Christ answered nothing, because He knew that Pilate asked all the questions idly." Besser remarks, "A petition to Christ for enlightenment, even when offered up in a man's last moments from a death bed, never fails of being answered, if offered in sincerity and from the heart; and obtains for the suppliant as much grace as is needful for salvation. But to a Pilate Jesus is silent." v10.—[Then saith Pilate, etc.] In this verse we see the imperious, fierce, haughty, arrogant temper of the Roman Governor breaking out. Accustomed to see prisoners cringing before him, and willing to do anything to obtain his favour, he could not understand our Lord's silence. He addresses Him in a tone of anger and surprise combined:— "Why dost Thou not answer my question? Dost thou know what Thou art doing in offending me? Dost Thou not know that Thou art at my mercy, and that I have power to crucify Thee or release Thee, according as I think right?"— I can see no other reasonable construction that can be put on Pilate's words. The idea that he was only persuading our Lord, and gently reminding Him of his own power, seems utterly unreasonable, and inconsistent with the following verse. This high-minded claim to absolute power is one which ungodly great men are fond of making. It is written of Nebuchadnezzar, "Whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up, and whom he would he put down." (Daniel 5:19.) Yet even when such men boast of power, they are often like Pilate, mere slaves, and afraid of resisting popular opinion. Pilate talked of "power to release;" but he knew in his own mind that he was afraid, and so unable to exercise it. It is only fair to remember that the Greek word rendered "power," might be rendered "authority," or "commission;" and in this sense Pilate might only mean, "I have commission from the Roman Government to sentence prisoners to death or let them go free: would it not be for Thine interest to speak to me?" v11.—[Jesus answered, etc.] Our Lord's reply to Pilate in this verse is remarkably calm and dignified, though not without some difficulties, because of its elliptical construction. It may be paraphrased thus: "Thou speakest of power. Thou dost not know that both thou and the Jews are only tools in the hand of a higher Being, and that thou couldest have no power whatever against Me, if it were not given thee by God. This, however, thou dost not understand, and art therefore less guilty than the Jews. The Jews who delivered Me into thine hand, do know that all power is from God. Thus their knowledge makes them more guilty than thou. Both thou and they are committing a great sin; but their sin is a sin against knowledge, and thine is comparatively a sin of ignorance. You are both unconsciously mere instruments in the hand of God, and you could do nothing against Me, if God did not permit and overrule it." The logical connection of the former and latter parts of the verse is by no means clear. The precise object of "therefore," and the reason why God's overruling providence made the Jews more guilty than the Gentiles, are things which it is not easy to explain. But I must think that the latent idea of our Lord was to remind Pilate how ignorantly he was acting, and how little he knew what he was about compared to the Jews. That the possession of superior knowledge increases the sinfulness of a sinner's sin, seems taught by implication in this verse. It was more sinful in the Jews, with all their knowledge of the law and the prophets, to deliver up Christ to be crucified, than it was in Pilate, an ignorant heathen, to condemn Him and put Him to death. The word "he" is differently interpreted. Some think that it must refer to Caiaphas, as the high priest and chief actor in the whole affair of our Lord's murder. Some even think it refers to Judas Iscariot. The more probable idea is that it refers to the whole Jewish people, personified by "he," and represented by their high priest. One thing, at any rate, is very certain. This was the last word that Jesus spoke during His trial. Henceforth He was "like a lamb before his shearers, dumb." Hengstenberg remarks, that in apportioning the comparative guilt of Pilate and of the Jews, our Lord shows Himself even at this crisis the true Judge of mankind. Lampe remarks, "The sin of the Jews was heavier than that of Pilate. Pilate was a Gentile, ignorant alike of the Messiah and His distinguishing marks: the Jews had read the prophecies about Him. Pilate could only have heard something about our Lord's great miracles by rumour and report: they were all done under the very eyes of the Jews. Pilate injured Jesus unwillingly, and from cowardice: they injured Him from hatred and envy. Finally, Pilate was only the instrument: the Jews were the impelling cause. Thus our Lord pronounces His opinion concerning His judges, an opinion according to which He will one day judge them." The expression "therefore," or literally "on account of this," is rather a difficult one. Markland says it means, "Because he has not this power from above, which thou hast, the Jew has the greater sin." Pearce takes much the same view. Rollock observes, speaking of the inquisition in Spain, "The Papists, when they have caught a Christian who confesseth Jesus Christ, after trying him, put him in the hands of the Emperor or King of Spain. Then they wash their hands, as clean of His blood; and who took his life but the King of Spain? But the wrath of God persecutes them, and the blood of the innocent lies on them, because they delivered them into their hands to be tormented." Hutcheson observes, that "the greatest height of impiety is found within the visible Church," where there is most knowledge. When all has been said, we must admit that there is probably something in the verse more deep than we have line to fathom. The two propositions of the verse are both quite intelligible; but the connecting-link, "therefore," is a hard knot, which has not yet been fairly untied. Augustine paraphrases this sentence thus: "He sins worse who of ill-will delivers up the innocent to the power to be put to death, than doth the power itself, if for the fear of another greater power it puts to death the innocent. The Jews delivered Me unto the power, as having ill-will against Me; but thou art about to exercise thy power against Me, as being afraid for thyself. Not that a man has a right to put to death an innocent person from fear; but to put to death out of hatred is much more evil than to put to death out of fear." Cyril says much the same. One thing, at any rate, is very clear. There are degrees in sin. All are not equally sinful. The servant who knew his master's will and did it not, was more guilty than he who knew it not. v12.—[And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him.] This is a remarkable sentence. It evidently means that from this point of the case Pilate sought more diligently than ever to have our Lord acquitted and set free. Before he wished it: now he really took pains to effect it. Whether this was occasioned by our Lord's manner and demeanour in speaking the words of the preceding verse, or by some meaning which He attached to the words, we cannot tell. But so it was. How and in what manner Pilate "sought to release" Jesus, we are not told by John. But it is evident that he left our Lord in the hall, where he had been asking Him, "Whence art Thou?" and went out alone to the Jews, to tell them he could make nothing of their charge of blasphemy, and wished to let the prisoner go. This must have taken place outside the doors, because the Jews scrupulously refused to go inside. Moreover, the Jews could not have known of this fresh desire to release Jesus, if Pilate had not come forth and communicated it to them. In this verse, therefore, be it remembered, we have Pilate and the Jews alone, outside the palace, and our Lord left inside. Pilate proposes to release Him, and the Jews protest against it. Then we shall find Pilate goes in again, and brings Jesus out for the last time. [But the Jews cried out...Cζsar.] In these words we see the Jews stopping Pilate short, in his weak efforts to get our Lord released, by an argument which they well knew would weigh heavily on a Roman mind. They tell him plainly that they will accuse him to Cζsar, the Roman Emperor, as a governor unfriendly to the Imperial interests.— "You are no friend to Cζsar if you let off this prisoner. Every one who sets himself up as a king, be his kingdom what it may, is usurping part of Cζsar's authority, and is a rebel. If you pass over this Man's claim to be a king, and set Him at liberty, we shall complain of you to Cζsar."— This was a settling and clinching argument. Pilate knew well that his own government of Judζa would not bear any investigation. He also knew well the cold, suspicious, cruel character of Tiberius Cζsar, the Emperor of Rome, which is specially mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius, the Roman historians, and he might well dread the result of any appeal to him from the Jews. From this moment all his hopes of getting rid of this anxious case, and letting our Lord go away unharmed, were dashed to the ground. He would rather connive at a murder to please the Jews, than allow himself to be charged with neglect of Imperial interests and unfriendliness to Cζsar. It is hard to say which was the more wretched and contemptible sight at this point of the history,— Pilate trampling on his own conscience to avoid the possible displeasure of an earthly monarch, or the Jews pretending to care for Cζsar's interests, and warning Pilate not to do anything unfriendly to him! It was a melancholy exhibition of cowardice on the one side, and duplicity on the other; and the whole result was a foul murder! v13.—[When Pilate heard that saying, etc.] The "saying" here refers to the Jews' saying about Cζsar in the preceding verse. When Pilate heard the dreaded name of Cζsar brought up, and found himself threatened with a possible complaint to Rome as a neglector of Imperial interests, he saw plainly that nothing more could be done, and that he must give way to the demands of the Jews and sacrifice an innocent prisoner. He therefore returned to the palace, brought forth Jesus again, and for the first time took his seat on the throne of judgment outside the palace, in the courtyard, or paved area adjacent to it. The case was now over. Pilate's weak efforts to deliver an innocent prisoner from unjust accusation were useless. He dared no longer oppose the bloody demands of the Jews. There remained nothing to be done but to take his seat publicly on the throne of judgment and pronounce the sentence. The word "forth" here, as in the fourth and fifth verses, means literally "outside." Pearce remarks, that "this is the fifth time that Pilate came forth and tried to prevail with the Jews that Jesus might not be crucified." On the "judgment seat," Parkhurst remarks: "In the Roman provinces, justice was administered in the open air, the presiding judge sitting on a tribunal, on a raised ground covered with marble." The "pavement" means the marble, or Mosaic levelled space, on which the judge's chair was placed. Parkhurst says that Roman Governors used sometimes to carry with them the materials to form such a pavement. The word "Gabbatha," according to Hammond, is more Syriac than Hebrew; "according to the custom of the New Testament, which calls Syriac, at that time the vulgar language of the Jews, Hebrew." Parkhurst says that the word means literally a raised place; and remarks that John does not mean in this verse that Gabbatha means pavement,— but that the same place which in Greek was called "pavement," was called in Hebrew "the raised place." [And it was...preparation of the passover.] This remarkable expression cannot mean that "this was the hour for preparing the passover meal," for it was not. It means, "this was the day before the great sabbath of the passover week, a day well-known among the Jews as the preparation, or day of preparing for the passover sabbath, which was peculiarly a high day." Mark expressly says this in his account of the passion. (Mark 15:42.) That all the Jewish feasts had their "eves," or preparation days, is quite clear from Rabbinical writers. We should observe how accurately and precisely John marks the day of the crucifixion. [And about the sixth hour.] This expression raises a grave difficulty, and one which in every age has perplexed the minds of Bible readers. The difficulty lies in the fact that Mark in his Gospel expressly says, "it was the third hour, and they crucified Him" (Mark 15:25); while John in this place says our Lord was only condemned at the sixth hour! Yet both Evangelists wrote by inspiration, and both were incapable of making a mistake. How then are we to reconcile and harmonize these two conflicting statements. The solutions of the difficulty suggested are many and various. (a) Some say, as the rationalistic writers, that one of the two Evangelists made a blunder, and that one of the accounts therefore is false. This is a solution which will satisfy no reverent-minded Christian. If Bible writers could make blunders like this, there is no such thing as inspiration, and there is an end of all confidence in Scripture as an infallible guide. (b) Some say, as Theophylact, Beza, Nonnus (in his poetical paraphrase), Tittman, Leigh, Usher (vol. vii. 176), Kuinoel, Bengel, Pearce, Alford, Scott, and Bloomfield, that the discrepancy has probably been caused by an error of the manuscript writers, and that the true reading in John should be "third," and not "sixth hour." This, however, is a very short-cut road out of the difficulty, and the immense proportion of old manuscripts are flatly against it. (c) Some say, as Augustine does in one place, and Bullinger, "that at the third hour the Lord was crucified by the tongues of the Jews, and at the sixth by the hands of the soldiers." This, however, to say the least, is a weak and childish explanation. Moreover, it is open to the grave objection that it would make out our Lord to have been only three hours on the cross, and all that time in the dark, and not seen consequently by any one! At this rate, the inscription over His head on the cross would certainly not have been read by many! "There was darkness over all the land from the sixth to the ninth hour." (d) Some say that Mark reckoned time on the Jewish plan, by which the hours began to count from the morning, and their seven o'clock answered to our one; while John reckoned time on our English plan, which is the same as the Roman one, and John's sixth hour meant literally about six in the morning. According to this theory Jesus was condemned, in John's account of the passion, at six o'clock in the morning, and crucified, in Mark's account, at nine o'clock. This explanation is very commonly adopted, and is supported by Wordsworth, Lee, and Burgon. But it is open to very serious objections. I see no proof whatever that John reckons time on the Roman and English plan, and not on the Jewish plan. The passage in the story of the Samaritan woman, which is commonly quoted as a proof, is no proof at all, and on reflection will cut directly the other way. If the "sixth hour," when Jesus sat on the well (see John 4:6), meant really our English six o'clock in the evening, it makes it impossible to understand how the conversation with the woman, her return to her native village, the telling of the men to come and see Jesus, the coming of the men, the return of the disciples with meat, could all be brought into the short space of one evening! The thing would have been impossible.— Moreover, it is an additional objection, that if Jesus was condemned at six o'clock in the morning, there are left three long hours between, the condemnation and the crucifixion unaccounted for and unexplained. I am obliged to say that in my judgment this way of explaining the difficulty completely fails. (e) Some think, as Calvin, Bucer, Gualter, Brentius, Musculus, Gerhard, Lampe, Hammond, Poole, Jansenius, Burkitt, Hengstenberg, and Ellicott, that John's sixth hour means any time after our nine o'clock in the morning; any time, in fact, within the space begun by the Jewish third hour. They say that the Jews divided the twelve hours of their day into four great portions: from six to nine, from nine to twelve, from twelve to three, and from three to six. They also say that any part of the time after our six in the morning would be called the third hour, and any time after our nine in the morning would be called the sixth hour. And they conclude that both the condemnation and the crucifixion took place soon after nine o'clock,— Mark calling it the third hour, because it was near our nine o'clock; John calling it the sixth hour, because it was some time between our nine and twelve. Grotius says, in Parkhurst, that the third, sixth, and ninth hours, which were most esteemed for prayer and other services, were marked by the sounding of a trumpet, and that after the trumpet sounding at the third hour, the sixth hour was considered to be at hand. Glass and Lampe support this opinion; and Lampe shows from Maimonides, a famous Jewish writer, that the Jews really divided the day into four quarters. Hengstenberg also remarks that the fourth and fifth hours are never mentioned in the New Testament. This theory undoubtedly brings the two Evangelists near to one another, if it does not quite reconcile them. (f) Some think, as Augustine in a second place suggests, and Harmer, quoted in Parkhurst, following him, that the "sixth hour here does not refer to the time of day, but to the preparation of the passover;"— and that the meaning is, "It was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour after that preparation began." But as that preparation often began very early indeed in the morning, or about our three o'clock, six hours counted from that time would bring us down to Mark's third hour, or our nine o'clock. Lightfoot supports this view, which is certainly very ingenious, and would clear away all difficulty. But it may fairly be objected that plain readers would hardly attach such a meaning as Harmer suggests to "the sixth hour." The difficulty is one of those which will probably never be solved. God has been pleased to leave it in Scripture for the trial of our faith and patience, and we must wait for its solution. Questions of time and date, like this, are often the most puzzling, from our inability to place ourselves in the position of the writer, and from the widely different manner in which measures and points of time are expressed in the language of different nations and in different ages. This very difficulty before us, perhaps, presented no difficulty whatever to the Apostolic Fathers, such as Polycarp and Clement. Perhaps they possessed some simple clue to its solution of which we know nothing. It is our wisdom to be patient, and to believe that it admits of explanation, though we have not eyes to see it. If I must venture an opinion, I think there is more to be said for the fifth of the six solutions I have given than for any other. But I allow that it is incomplete. In any case we must in fairness remember that John does not say, distinctly and expressly, "it was the sixth hour," but "about the sixth hour." This shows that some latitude may be allowed in interpretation, and that the acknowledged discrepancy between John and Mark must not be too far pressed, or made of too much importance. One thing, at all events, appears to me quite inadmissible. We cannot allow ourselves to suppose that Jesus was not crucified till twelve o'clock in the day, when the miraculous darkness began, and that He only hung on the cross three hours. [And he saith...Behold your King!] These words must have been spoken in bitter irony, anger, and contempt. "Behold the Man whom you accuse of setting Himself up as a King and being an enemy to Cζsar! Behold this bleeding, weak, humble, meek, helpless prisoner!— this wretched, harmless Person you pretend to be afraid of, and want me to crucify! You wish your own King to be put to death? This, I am to understand, is what you desire. Look at Him, and say!" v15.—[But they cried...away...crucify Him.] As on former occasions, Pilate's public appeal had not the slightest effect on the Jews. Once more they raised their fierce, relentless, obstinate cry, and demanded the Prisoner's death by crucifixion. Nothing but His blood would satisfy them. The horrible excesses of the Parisian mob, during the infamous Reign of Terror in the first French revolution, give us some faint idea of the savage spirit which can run through a crowd, by a kind of infection, when their hatred is stirred up against an individual. The Greek word rendered "away with him," is literally, "take him away;" and often means, "take Him away to execution or destruction." Henry remarks, that this public rejection of Christ fulfilled two prophecies of Isaiah: "Him whom the nation abhorreth" (Isaiah 49:7); and "We hid as it were our faces from Him." (Isaiah 53:2). [Pilate saith...crucify your King?] For the last time Pilate put the question to the Jews, and gave them a last chance of relenting. In bitter irony he asked,— "Shall I then really crucify your own King? Shall I, a Roman, order a King of the Jews to be put to an ignominious death? Is this your wish and desire?" [The chief priests...no king but Cζsar.] These memorable words inflicted indelible disgrace on the leaders of the Jews, and stamped the Jews for ever as a fallen, blinded, God-forsaking, God-forsaken, and apostate nation. They, who at one time used to say, "The Lord God is our King," renounced the faith of their forefathers, and publicly declared that Cζsar was their king, and not God. They stultified themselves, and gave the lie to their own boasted declaration of independence of foreign powers. Had they not said themselves, "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man"? (John 8:33.) Had they not tried to entrap our Lord into saying something in favour of Cζsar, that they might damage His reputation? "Is it lawful to give tribute to Cζsar?" (Matthew 22:17.) And now, forsooth, they shout out, "We have no king but Cζsar!" Above all they madly proclaimed to the world, though they knew it not, that Jacob's ancient prophecy was fulfilled, that "the sceptre had departed from Judah," and that Messiah must have come. (Genesis 49:10.) Truly the sceptre had departed, when chief priests could say, "We have no king but Cζsar." Cyril remarks, that "while other nations, all over the world, cling tenaciously to their own religion, and honour those whom they call gods, and will not forsake them, Israel revolted from God, cast off His authority, and claimed Cζsar as their king. Justly therefore they were delivered over into Cζsar's hands, and endured the heaviest calamities." Henry remarks,— "They would have no king but Cζsar, and never have they had any other to this day, 'but have been many days without a king, and without a prince' (Hosea 3:4), that is, without any of their own, and the kings of the nations have ruled over them. Since they will have no king but Cζsar, so shall their doom be: themselves have decided it." Lampe compares the conduct of the priests in this place to that of the trees in Jotham's parable, who said to the bramble, "Come and reign over us." (Judges 9:14.) The very men who ought to have taught the people to hope for the Messiah, here publicly renounce the Messiah's kingdom, and declare themselves contented with Cζsar! I cannot but think that Pilate's public washing of his hands before the people, and saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person" (Matthew 27:24), must come in at this part of John's narrative. v16.—[Then delivered, etc.] This verse describes the conclusion of the most unjust trial of our blessed Lord, when, "in His humiliation, His judgment was taken away." (Acts 8:33.) All was now over. The last appeal had been made to the Jews, and for the last time they had rejected it. What happened is described by Luke, but passed over by John. "Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required." (Luke 23:24.) He then formally delivered over our Lord into the hands of the chief priests, and formally gave them permission to put Him to death by crucifixion. These hardened and wicked men at once "took Jesus and led Him away."— Of course we must not suppose that the "chief priests" themselves laid hands on our Lord, and with their own hands led Him away. No doubt the Roman soldiers of Pilate were the executioners, and a centurion had charge of all the bloody transaction of the execution. But inasmuch as the soldiers only carried out the wishes of the priests, the priests were the responsible persons and prime agents in this judicial murder. Luke says, "He delivered Jesus to their will." (Luke 23:25.) Let us remember, when we read that word "delivered," that it is expressly written, He was "delivered for our offences," and that God "spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all." (Romans 4:25; Romans 8:32.) Christ was delivered to death, that we might be delivered from death and set free. Here is substitution. Let us remember, as we read the word "led," that Isaiah expressly foretold that Messiah should be "brought, or led, as a Lamb to the slaughter." (Isaiah 53:7. Acts 8:32.) Alford thinks it possible that at this point the scourging of our Lord was repeated. But I see no satisfactory proof of this. Considering what a Roman scourging was, it is not probable that any body could have endured it twice in one day. Let us note, that according to the narrative of John, there seems no delay between the condemnation of our Lord and His crucifixion. He went at once from Gabbatha to Golgotha, and from the judgment to execution. At this rate the theory, supported by Burgon and others, that there was a delay of three hours, between six o'clock and nine, after condemnation, is completely overthrown. If we looked at Matthew and Mark alone, we might fancy that Pilate saw nothing more of our Lord after He had been scourged and mocked by the soldiers. But it appears plain to me, if we carefully compare John's account with that of Matthew and Mark, that they have not recorded our Lord's last appearance before Pilate, which John relates. Nor can I feel surprised at this, when I remember that throughout John's Gospel, he supplies what the other evangelists have omitted. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/ryle-expository-thoughts/ He that can read a passage like this without a deep sense of man's debt to Christ, must have a very cold, or a very thoughtless heart. Great must be the love of the Lord Jesus to sinners, when He could voluntarily endure such sufferings for their salvation. Great must be the sinfulness of sin, when such an amount of vicarious suffering was needed in order to provide redemption. We should observe, first, in this passage, how our Lord had to bear His cross when He went forth from the city to Golgotha. We need not doubt that there was a deep meaning in all this circumstance. For one thing, it was part of that depth of humiliation to which our Lord submitted as our substitute. One portion of the punishment imposed on the vilest criminals, was that they should carry their own cross when they went to execution; and this portion was laid upon our Lord. In the fullest sense He was reckoned a sinner, and counted a curse for our sakes.— For another thing, it was a fulfillment of the great type of the sin-offering of the Mosaic law. It is written, that "the bullock for the sin-offering, and the goat for the sin-offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp." (Leviticus 16:27.) Little did the blinded Jews imagine, when they madly hounded on the Romans to crucify Jesus outside the gates, that they were unconsciously perfecting the mightiest sin-offering that was ever seen. It is written, "Jesus, that He might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate." (Hebrews 13:12.) The practical lesson which all true Christians should gather from the fact before us, is one that should be kept in continual remembrance. Like our Master, we must be content to go forth "without the camp," bearing His reproach. We must come out from the world and be separate, and be willing, if need be, to stand alone. Like our Master, we must be willing to take up our cross daily, and to be persecuted both for our doctrine and our practice. Well would it be for the Church if there was more of the true cross to be seen among Christians! To wear material crosses as an ornament, to place material crosses on churches and tombs, all this is cheap and easy work, and entails no trouble. But to have Christ's cross in our hearts, to carry Christ's cross in our daily walk, to know the fellowship of His sufferings, to be made conformable to His death, to have crucified affections, and live crucified lives,— all this needs self-denial; and Christians of this stamp are few and far between. Yet, this, we may be sure, is the only cross-bearing and cross-carrying that does good in the world. The times require less of the cross outwardly and more of the cross within. We should observe, secondly, in this passage, how our Lord was crucified as a King. The title placed over our Lord's head made this plain and unmistakable. The reader of Greek, or Latin, or Hebrew, could not fail to see that He who hung on the central cross of the three on Golgotha, had a royal title over His head. The overruling hand of God so ordered matters, that the strong will of Pilate overrode for once the wishes of the malicious Jews. In spite of the chief priests, our Lord was crucified as "the King of the Jews." It was meet and right that so it should be. Even before our Lord was born, the angel Gabriel declared to the virgin Mary, "The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end." (Luke 1:32-33.) Almost as soon as He was born, there came wise men from the East, saying, "Where is He that is born King of the Jews?" (Matthew 2:2.) The very week before the crucifixion, the multitude who accompanied our Lord at His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, had cried, "Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord." (John 12:13.) The current belief of all godly Jews was, that when Messiah, the Son of David came, He would come as a King. A kingdom of heaven and a kingdom of God was continually proclaimed by our Lord throughout His ministry. A King indeed He was, as He told Pilate, of a kingdom utterly unlike the kingdoms of this world, but for all that a true King of a true kingdom, and a Ruler of true subjects. As such He was born. As such He lived. As such He was crucified. And as such He will come again, and reign over the whole earth, King of kings and Lord of lords. Let us take care that we ourselves know Christ as our King, and that His kingdom is set up within our hearts. They only will find Him their Savior at the last day, who have obeyed Him as King in this world. Let us cheerfully pay Him that tribute of faith, and love, and obedience, which He prizes far above gold. Above all, let us never be afraid to own ourselves His faithful subjects, soldiers, servants and followers, however much He may be despised by the world. A day will soon come when the despised Nazarene who hung on the cross, shall take to Himself His great power and reign, and put down every enemy under His feet. The kingdoms of this world, as Daniel foretold, shall be swept aside, and become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ. And at last every knee shall bow to Him, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. We should observe, lastly, in these verses, how tenderly our Lord took thought for Mary, His mother. We are told that even in the awful agonies of body and mind which our Lord endured, He did not forget her of whom He was born. He mercifully remembered her desolate condition, and the crushing effect of the sorrowful sight before her. He knew that, holy as she was, she was only a woman, and that, as a woman, she must deeply feel the death of such a Son. He therefore commended her to the protection of His best-loved and best-loving disciple, in brief and touching words: "Woman," He said, "behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." We surely need no stronger proof than we have here, that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was never meant to be honored as divine, or to be prayed to, worshiped, and trusted in, as the friend and patroness of sinners. Common sense points out that she who needed the care and protection of another, was never likely to help men and women to heaven, or to be in any sense a mediator between God and man! It is not too much to say, however painful the assertion, that of all the inventions of the Church of Rome, there never was one more utterly devoid of foundation, both in Scripture and reason, than the doctrine of Mary-worship. Let us turn from points of controversy to a subject of far more practical importance. Let us take comfort in the thought that we have in Jesus a Savior of matchless tenderness, matchless sympathy, matchless consideration for the condition of His believing people. Let us never forget His words, "Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." (Mark 3:35.) The heart that even on the cross felt for Mary, is a heart that never changes. Jesus never forgets any that love Him, and even in their worst estate remembers their need. No wonder that Peter says, "Casting all your care upon Him; for He careth for you." (1 Peter 5:7.) ================== Notes— v17.—[And He bearing His cross.] It was the Roman custom to compel criminals, sentenced to crucifixion, to carry their own cross. Our Lord was thus treated like the vilest felon. "Furcifer," was the Latin name of ignominy and contempt given to the worst criminals. It means, literally, "cross-bearer." Besser observes that our Lord, when a workman in the carpenter's shop at Nazareth, had willingly carried pieces of timber in the service of His foster-father. Here, with no less cheerfulness, He bears to Golgotha the timber of the cross, in order to raise the altar on which He is to be sacrificed, and to do the will of his Father in heaven. Whether the "cross" that our Lord bore, was a straight piece of timber, with another transverse piece fixed across it, for the hands of the criminal to be nailed to,— or whether it was a tree with two forked arms, admits perhaps of some little doubt. The almost universal tradition of the Churches is that it was the former: viz., a cross made of two pieces. Yet it is worth remembering that it was very common to crucify on a tree such as I have described,— that the Latin word for "cross-bearer," means, literally, "forked-tree-bearer,"— and that our Bible translators have four times spoken of the "wood" on which our Lord was crucified as "the tree." (Acts 5:30; Acts 10:39; Acts 13:29; 1 Peter 2:24.) The matter therefore is not quite so clear as some may think, though of course it is one of no consequence. The cross of two pieces at right angles, is certainly more picturesque than a common tree shaped like the letter Y, and the habitual use of the cross in Christian art, and the general tradition of ecclesiastical history, have combined to make most people regard the question as a settled one. Yet the undeniable use of forked trees in crucifying criminals, and the equally undeniable difficulty of carrying a cross of two transverse pieces, compared with a forked tree, are points that really ought not to be overlooked. The matter, after all, is one of pure conjecture. But, to say the least, it is quite a disputable point whether the cross with which Christendom is so familiar, on the gable ends of churches, on tombs, in painted windows, in crucifixes, or in the simple ornamental form which ladies are so fond of wearing,— the cross, I say, of two transverse pieces at right angles, is really and truly the kind of cross on which Christ was crucified! There is no proof positive that the whole of Christendom is not mistaken. Of course, if the cross itself had been preserved and found, it would settle the dispute. But there is not the slightest reason to suppose that it was preserved, or treated with any respect, either by Jews, Romans, or disciples. The famous story of the "discovery or invention of the cross" by the Empress Helena in 326 A.D., is a mere apocryphal legend invented by man, and deserves no more attention than the many pretended pieces of the true cross, which are exhibited in Romish churches as sacred relics. Ambrose says, quaintly enough, that the form of the cross is that of a sword with the point downward; above is the hilt toward heaven, as if in the hand of God; below is the point toward earth, as if thrust through the head of the old serpent the devil. One thing only is very certain. Whatever was the shape of the cross on which Jesus was crucified, it could not have been the huge, tall, heavy thing which painters and sculptors have continually represented it to be. To suppose that any man could carry such an enormous weight of timber, as the cross is made to be in Rubens' famous picture of the "Descent from the Cross," is preposterous and absurd. A cross was manifestly not a larger thing than could be lifted and borne on the shoulders of one person. Some get over the difficulty by maintaining the theory that the transverse piece was the only part of the cross which the criminal carried. But there is no sufficient evidence that this was the case. It is noteworthy that John is the only Evangelist who says that our Lord bore His own cross. Matthew, Mark and Luke, all say that Simon the Cyrenian was compelled to bear it. The explanation is probably this. Our Lord bore the cross for a short part of the way from the judgment-seat to Golgotha. Weakness and physical exhaustion, after all the mental and bodily suffering of the last night, rendered it impossible for Him to carry it all the way. Just at the moment when His strength failed, perhaps at the city gate, the soldiers saw Simon coming into the city, and pressed him into the service. As on other occasions, John records a fact which the other Evangelists for wise reasons passed over. It is interesting to remember that the circumstance is one which John must have seen in all probability with his own eyes. That our blessed Lord, who had a body like our own, and not a body of superhuman vigour, should have been unable to carry the cross more than a little way, need not surprise us at all, if we consider all that He had gone through to try His physical strength, and tax His nervous system to the uttermost, in the eighteen hours preceding His crucifixion. It is hardly necessary to remark that the type of Isaac bearing the wood for the sacrifice on Moriah, in which he himself was to be the victim, was here fulfilled by our Lord. It is moreover a curious circumstance, mentioned by Bishop Pearson, that a Jewish commentator on Genesis 22:6, speaks of Isaac carrying the wood for the burnt offering, "as a man carries his cross upon his shoulders." [Went forth.] That expression show's clearly that our Lord went out of the city to be crucified. He was condemned in the open air, and "went forth" cannot mean out of Pilate's house, but went outside of Jerusalem, without the gates. Trifling as this incident may seem to a careless reader, it was a striking fulfilment of one of the great types of the Mosaic law. The sin offering on the great day of atonement was to be carried forth "without the camp." (Leviticus 16:27.) Our Lord came to be the true sin offering, to give His soul an offering for our sins. Therefore it was divinely overruled of God, that, in order to fulfil the type perfectly, He should suffer outside the city. (See also Leviticus 4:12-21.) Paul specially refers to this when he tells the Hebrew Christians, who were familiar with the law of Moses, that "Jesus suffered without the gate." (Hebrews 13:12.) The minutest details of our Lord's passion have a deep meaning. [Into a place...skull...Golgotha.] The precise position of this place is not known certainly, and can only be conjectured. We only know (from John 19:20) that it was "nigh to the city," that it was "outside" the walls of Jerusalem at the time of our Lord's crucifixion, and that it was near some public road, as there is mention in one Gospel of them "that passed by." (Matthew 27:39.) So many changes have taken place, during the long period of 1800 years, in the boundary walls and the soil of Jerusalem, that no wise man will speak positively as to the exact whereabouts of Golgotha at this day. Though outside the walls 1800 years ago, it is far from unlikely that it is within the walls at this time. (a) Some maintain, as most probable, that Golgotha was a place between the then existing wall of Jerusalem, and the descent into the valley of the Kidron, on the east side of the city, near the road leading to Bethany. In this case the cross must have been in full view of any one standing on the tower of Antonia, in the temple courts, on the Mount of Olives, or upon the eastern wall of the city. If this is correct, the crucifixion might have been seen by hundreds of thousands of people at once with perfect ease; and from the sufferer being lifted up, as it were, in the air, must have been an event of extraordinary publicity. According to the advocates of this theory, the traditional site now assigned to the Holy Sepulchre is the true one. (b) Others, however, who have carefully examined the topography of Jerusalem, and are extremely likely to be wise and impartial judges, are decidedly of [the] opinion that Golgotha was on the north side of Jerusalem, near the Damascus gate; and they repudiate altogether the site commonly assigned to the holy sepulchre at the present time. An old and valued friend, who has walked repeatedly over this "debatable land," says, "I think the crucifixion took place on the north side of the city, near the present Damascus gate, on a platform of rock, just above a valley which runs on in endless tombs nearly two miles. Beneath this platform is a garden of olives still, full of excavations. In one of these, I think, was the sepulchre." (c) Others, and among them another friend, who has travelled much in Palestine, and published the results of his travels, inclines to think that Golgotha was on the west side of Jerusalem, near the Jaffa gate. The friend I refer to says, in a letter to me on this subject, "When I was first in Jerusalem in 1857, I visited some extraordinary fissures and cracks in the rocks west of the city, reminding me of the expression, the rocks rent. (Matthew 27:51.) These fissures are now all filled up." Much, he adds, depends on the question whether Pilate resided in the tower of Antonia, and had his judgment hall there, or in the tower of Hippicus. This, however, we have no means of ascertaining. In the face of such conflicting opinions I dare not speak positively, and I must leave my readers to judge for themselves. The question is one about which no one, it is clear, has any right to be heard, unless he has actually seen Jerusalem. Why the place was called "the place of a skull" we are not told, and are left entirely to conjecture. (a) Some think, as Gualter, Bullinger, Musculus, Gerhard, Burgon, Alford, Besser, and others, that the verse points to the bones, skeletons, and skulls, of executed criminals, which were lying about on Golgotha, as the common place of execution. This theory, however, is open to the grave objection, that it is most unlikely that dead men's bones would be left lying above ground, so near the city, when, according to the Mosaic law, they made any Jew unclean who touched them. The Pharisees, with their excessive scrupulosity about externals, were not likely to tolerate such a source of defilement close to the holy city!— Moreover, John expressly says, that in the place were Jesus was crucified "there was a garden." (John 19:41.) This does not look like a place where dead men's bones and the skulls of criminals would be left lying about! The very mention of this "garden" would suggest the idea that the place was not ordinarily used for execution, and that the Pharisees chose it only for its singular publicity. If it was on the east side, we can well believe that they felt a diabolical pleasure in tormenting our Lord to the last, by making Him die with the temple, the Mount of Olives, and His favourite Gethsemane before His eyes. (b) Some think, as Lampe, Ellicott, and others, that the name, "place of a skull," arose from the shape of the small rising ground, like a skull, on which the cross was fixed. That such small elevations of limestone rock are to be found in that vicinity, is asserted by some travellers. To me there seems more probability in this theory than in the other. The name "Calvary," we should remember, is never used in the Greek; and the marginal reading in Luke 23:33 ought certainly to be in the text. One thing alone is very certain. There is not the slightest authority for the common idea, that the place where our Lord was crucified was a hill, or mountain. The common expression in hymns and religious poetry, "Mount Calvary," is utterly incorrect and unwarrantable, and the favourite antithesis, or comparison between Mount Sinai and Mount Calvary, is so completely destitute of any Scriptural basis, that it is almost profane. Anything more unlike, as a matter of fact, than Sinai and Golgotha, cannot be conceived. Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Augustine, Jerome, and Theophylact, all mention an old tradition, that Golgotha was the place where the first Adam, our forefather, was buried, and that the second Adam was buried near the first! This of course is a ridiculous, lying fable, as Noah's flood must have swept away all certainty about Adam's grave. v18.—[Where they crucified Him.] This famous mode of execution is so well known to every one that little need be said of it. The common mode of inflicting it, in all probability, was to strip the criminal,— to lay him on the cross on his back,— to nail his hands to the two extremities of the cross-piece, or fork of the cross,— to nail his feet to the upright piece, or principal stem of the cross,— then to raise the cross on end, and drop it into a hole prepared for it,— and then to leave the sufferer to a lingering and painful death. It was a death which combined the maximum of pain with the least immediate destruction of life. The agony of having nails driven through parts so full of nerves and sinews as the hands and feet, must have been intense. Yet wounds of the hands and feet are not mortal, and do not injure any great leading blood-vessel. Hence a crucified person, even in an eastern climate, exposed to the sun, might live two or three days, enduring extreme pain, without being relieved by death, if he was naturally a very strong man and in vigorous health. This is what we must remember our blessed Lord went through, when we read "they crucified Him." To a sensitive, delicate-minded person, it is hard to imagine any capital punishment more distressing. This is what Jesus endured willingly for us sinners. Hanging, as it were, between earth and heaven, He exactly fulfilled the type of the brazen serpent, which Moses lifted up in the wilderness. (John 3:14.) Whether the person crucified was bound to the cross with ropes, to prevent the possibility of his breaking off from the nails in convulsive struggling,— whether He was stripped completely naked, or had a cloth round His loins,— whether each foot had a separate nail, or one nail was driven through both feet,— are disputed points which we have no means of settling.— Some think, following Irenζus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr, that there was a kind of seat or projection in the middle of the stem of the cross, to bear up the weight of the body, and also a place for the feet to rest on. Jeremy Taylor thinks, in support of this view, that the body of a crucified person could not rest only on the four wounds of hands and feet. Bishop Pearson also quotes a passage from Seneca, which seems to favour the idea.— As to the nails, Nonnus and Gregory Nazianzen say there were only three, and that one was driven through both feet at once. Cyprian says there were four.— But these are matters about which we really know nothing, and it is useless to guess and speculate about them. Of one thing however we may be very sure. The feet of a crucified person were much nearer the ground than is commonly supposed, and very likely not more than a foot or two from the earth. In this, as in other points, most pictures of the crucifixion are grossly incorrect, and the cross is made out to be a piece of timber so long and so thick that no one mortal man could ever have carried it. Concerning the precise amount of physical suffering, and the precise effect on the human body in a crucifixion, the following medical account by a German physician, named Richter, quoted in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, can hardly fail to interest a Bible reader. He says, "(1) The unnatural position and violent tension of the body caused a painful sensation from the least motion. (2) The nails being driven through parts of the hands and feet which are full of nerves and tendons, and yet at a distance from the heart, created the most exquisite anguish. (3) The exposure of so many wounds and lacerations brought on inflammation, which tended to become gangrene, and every moment increased the poignancy of suffering. (4) In the distended parts of the body more blood flowed through the arteries than could be carried back into the veins: and hence too much blood found its way from the aorta into the head and stomach, and the blood vessels of the head became pressed and swollen. The general obstruction of circulation caused an internal excitement, exertion, and anxiety, more intolerable than death itself. (5) There was the inexpressible misery of gradually increasing and lingering anguish. (6) To all this we may add burning and raging thirst." (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible: article, Crucifixion.) On the whole subject of the cross, and the sufferings connected with crucifixion, "Lipsius de Cruce" (published in 1595) is a most exhaustive book. When we remember, beside all this, that our Lord's head was crowned with thorns, His back torn with savage scourging, and His whole system weighed down by the mental and bodily agony of the sleepless night following the Lord's Supper, we may have some faint idea of the intensity of His sufferings. When we read "they" crucified, we are left to conjecture who it can refer to. It cannot be the Jews, because they could only stand by, and superintend at the most, as the Roman soldiers would certainly not let the punishment be inflicted by any other hands than their own. It must either be the four soldiers who were the executioners, or else it must be interpreted generally after the manner of other places, for "He was crucified." Thus, in John 16:2, "They shall put you out of the synagogues." In that sentence "they" cannot refer to any person in particular. The simplest plan is to refer it generally to the whole party,— Jews and Gentiles together. [And two others with Him, etc.] We know from the other Gospels that these other two were malefactors and thieves. The object of crucifying our Lord between them is plain. It was intended as a last indignity and injury. It was a public declaration that He was counted no better than the vilest criminals. Little as our Lord's enemies meant it, this very crucifixion between two thieves did two great things. One was, that it precisely fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy about Messiah: "He was numbered with the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:12.) The other was, that it gave our Lord the opportunity of working one more mighty miracle, even in His last hours,— the miracle of converting the penitent thief, forgiving his sins, and opening to him paradise. If His enemies had been content to crucify Him alone, this last trophy could not have been won, and our Lord's power over sin and the devil would not have been exhibited. So easy is it for God to bring good out of evil, and to make the malice of His enemies work round to His praise. Augustine remarks, that three very different persons hung together on the three crosses on Golgotha. One was the Saviour of sinners. One was a sinner about to be saved. One was a sinner about to be damned. (On Psalms 34:1-22.) Cyril sees in the two malefactors a type of the Jewish and Gentile Churches: the one rejected, impenitent, and lost; the other believing at the eleventh hour, and saved. Many pious commentators remark, that even on the cross our Lord gave an emblem of His kingly power. On His right hand was a saved soul whom He admits into His kingdom; on His left hand, a lost soul whom He leaves to reap the fruit of his own ways. There was right and left on the cross, even as there will be right and left, saved and unsaved, when He sits on the judgment-seat, wearing the crown at the last day. It only remains to add that the cruel punishment of crucifixion was formally abolished by the Emperor Constantine, towards the end of his reign. It is an awful historical fact that when Jerusalem was taken by Titus, he crucified so many Jews around the city, that Josephus says that space and room failed for crosses, and crosses could not be found in sufficient number for bodies! Reland well remarks, "They who had nothing but 'crucify' in their mouths, were therewith paid home in their bodies." v19.—[And Pilate wrote a title...cross.] To fix a board with an inscription over the head of the person crucified, appears to have been a well-known custom, and is mentioned as such by classical writers. Some say it was a board covered with white gypsum, with letters of black, and others say that the letters were red. Pilate therefore did nothing unusual. In our Lord's case it served two ends, whether Pilate meant them or not. For one thing, it proclaimed to all passers-by, and all who saw the crucifixion, that Jesus did really suffer, that He was not at the last moment released and another punished in His stead, and that He was not taken away by miraculous interference from His enemies' hands. For another thing, it drew attention of all witnesses and passers-by to our Lord, and made it quite certain on which of the three crosses He hung. Without this, a person looking at three naked figures hanging on their crosses, from a little distance off, might well have doubted which of the three was Jesus. The title made it plain. That our Lord was regarded as no common every-day criminal, and that it was thought right to call special attention to Him, is evident from this title being put on His cross. [Jesus...Nazareth...King...Jews.] Pilate's reasons for choosing to place this description of our Lord over His cross, we are left to conjecture. My own decided opinion is that he worded the title as he did, in anger and vexation, and with an intention to annoy and insult the Jews. He publicly held up to scorn their King, as a poor criminal from a mean village in Galilee, a fitting king for such a people!— Whatever his motive may have been, it was curiously overruled by God that even on the cross our Lord should be styled a "King." He came to be a King, and as a King He lived and suffered and died, though not acknowledged and honoured by His subjects. "Nazarene" identified our Lord as the well-known Teacher from Galilee, who for three years had stirred the Jewish mind. "King" identified Him as the Person accused by the chief priests for claiming a kingdom, and formally rejected by them, on the plea that they had no king but Cζsar. It was a very full and significant title. A careful reader of the Gospels will not fail to observe, that each Gospel writer gives this title in a slightly different form, and that there are in fact four versions of it. The question naturally arises, Which is correct? The versions do not at all contradict one another; but that of Mark, "the King of the Jews," is much shorter than that of John. No two, in a word, are exactly like.— In reply, it is fair to remind the reader, that the inscription was written in three languages; and that it is far from unlikely that it was in one form in one language, and in another form in another. The one common point in all the four versions is, "the King of the Jews," and this was probably the only point that Mark, in his brief and condensed history, was taught to record. John gives the whole inscription, because he alone narrates the dispute between the priests and Pilate about it. If I may venture a conjecture, I should guess that Mark gives the Latin inscription, Luke the Greek, and Matthew and John the Hebrew one. But why it seemed good to the Holy Ghost that Matthew should omit the expression, "of Nazareth," which John mentions, I do not pretend to say. It is precisely one of those things in which it is wisest to confess our ignorance, and to be willing to wait for more light. John alone records that Pilate "wrote" and "put" on the cross this title. We are not obliged to suppose that he did both with his own hands. The writing was almost certainly his own act. The putting the title on the cross he probably left to the soldiers. The common pictures of the crucifixion, showing a kind of scroll, or parchment, over our Lord's head on the cross, are most probably in this, as in other details, most incorrect representations of the real facts. Moreover most painters seem to forget that it was written three times over, being in three languages! v20.—[This title then read many, etc.] This seems to be one of John's parenthetical comments. It also reads like the report of an eyewitness; and this we know John was. He stood by and saw all that happened. It is as though he said, "I can testify that many of the Jews saw and read this title,— some as they passed along the road which ran by,— some from the walls of the city, for the place was near the walls. It was an inscription moreover so contrived, that hardly any one in Jerusalem could fail to understand it; for it was written in the three languages most likely to be known,— in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin." It is almost needless to say that the title was in Hebrew, because every Jew would know it, the oldest language in the world, and the language of the Old Testament,— in Greek, because this was the language most known in all eastern countries, and the language of all literary and educated people,— in Latin, because this was the language of the Romans, the ruling nation in the world. The Roman soldiers would all understand the Latin; the Greek proselytes and Hellenistic Jews would all understand the Greek; and the pure Jews from Galilee and Judζa, and every part of the earth, assembled for the passover, would all understand the Hebrew. All would go away to spread the tidings that one Jesus, the King of the Jews, had been put to death by crucifixion at the passover feast. Henry remarks, "In the Hebrew, the oracles of God were recorded; in Greek, the learning of the philosophers; and in Latin, the laws of the empire. In each of these languages Christ is proclaimed King, in whom are hid all the treasures of revelation, wisdom, and power." To this very day it is certain that no three languages can be more useful for a Christian minister to know, if he would be familiar with his Bible, than Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. The last day alone, perhaps, will disclose the effect this title had on those who read it. When the priests and their companions saw it, they mocked and scoffed: "King indeed! Let Christ the King of Israel descend from the cross, and we will believe." (Mark 15:32.) But there was one man who saw the title probably with very different eyes. The penitent thief perhaps grasped at the word "King," and believed. Who can tell that this was not the root of his cry, "Lord remember me, when Thou comest into Thy kingdom." (Luke 23:42.) Perhaps Pilate's title helped to save a soul! Brentius remarks, that when we think of the cross of Christ, and the title on it, which so many read, we should remember there was another handwriting nailed to that cross spiritually, which no mortal could read. Jesus Christ, by His vicarious death for us, "Blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross." (Colossians 2:14.) v21.—[Then said the chief priests, etc.] This verse brings out the feeling which the sight of Pilate's title excited in the minds of the chief priests. They were annoyed and angry. They did not like the idea of this crucified criminal being publicly declared "the King of the Jews." They detected the latent scorn and irony which guided Pilate's hands, and lay at the bottom of his mind. They did not like so public an announcement that they had crucified their own King, and wanted "no King but Cζsar." They were vexed at the implied reflection on themselves. Besides this, they were probably uncomfortable in conscience. Hardened and wicked as they were, they had, many of them, we may be sure, a secret conviction which they vainly tried to keep down, that they were doing a wrong thing, and a thing which by and by they would find it hard to defend either to themselves or others. Hence they tried to get Pilate to alter the title, and to make it appear that our Lord was only a pretended King,— an impostor who "said that He was King." This, they doubtless thought, would shift some of the guilt off their shoulders, and make it appear that our Lord was crucified for usurping a title to which He was legally proved to have no claim. When and where the chief priests said this to Pilate does not appear. It must either have been when the whole party was leaving the judgment-seat for Golgotha, or after our Lord was nailed to the tree, or while the soldiers were nailing Him. Looking at John's account, one might fancy that the centurion sent word to Pilate that the prisoner was being nailed to the cross, and asked for a title to put over His head, before the cross was reared. If we do not suppose this, we must believe that Pilate actually accompanied the party outside the walls, and was only at a little distance off during the last horrible preparations. In that case he might easily write a title, and the priests might easily be standing by. The difficulty is to understand where the parties could be, when the priests said "write not;" and it is one which must be left unsettled. It seems, however, certain that once put over our Lord's head, the title was not expected to be taken down; and the request was not to alter it, after being put up, but to write a different title before it was put up. Bengel observes, that this is the only place in John's Gospel where the chief priests are called "the chief priests of the Jews." He thinks it is intended to mark emphatically the bitter hatred with which the priests of the Jews regarded the King of the Jews. We may well believe that even the wickedest men at their worst, are often more sore and uncomfortable inwardly than they appear outwardly. This it was that probably lay at the bottom of the chief priests' remonstrance about the title. Herod's cry, "It is John the Baptist," after John was dead, is another case in point. v22.—[Pilate answered...I have written.] The hard, haughty, imperious character of the wicked Roman Governor comes out forcibly in these words. They show his contempt for the Jews:— "Trouble me not about the title: I have written it, and I shall not alter it to please you."— They suggest the idea that he was willing enough to be revenged on them for their obstinate refusal to meet his wishes, and consent to our Lord's release. He was glad to hold them up to scorn and contempt, as a people who crucified their own king. It is likely enough that between his wife and his own conscience and the chief priests, the Roman Governor was vexed, worried, and irritated, and savagely resolved not to gratify the Jews any further in any matter. He had gone as far as he chose, in allowing them to murder an innocent and just person. He would not go an inch further. He now made a stand, and showed that he could be firm and unyielding and unbending when he liked. It is no uncommon thing to see a wicked man, when he has given way to the devil and trampled on his conscience in one direction, trying to make up for it by being firm in another. Calvin observes that Pilate, by publishing in three languages Christ's title, was "by a secret guidance made a herald of the Gospel." He contrasts his conduct with that of the Papists who prohibit the reading of the Gospel and the Scriptures by the common people. Gualter says much the same. Bullinger remarks that Pilate acted like Caiaphas when he said, "It is expedient that one die for the people, not knowing what he said." Just so Pilate little knew what testimony he was bearing to Christ's kingly office. Leigh quotes a saying of Augustine: "If a man like Pilate can say, what I have written I have written, and will not alter, can we think that God doth write any in His book and blot him out again?" v23.—[Then the soldiers, etc.] The soldiers having now finished their bloody work, having nailed our Lord to the cross, put the title over His head and reared the cross on end, proceeded to do what they probably always did,— to divide the clothes of the crucified criminal among themselves. In most countries the clothes of a person put to death by the law are the perquisite of the executioner. So it was with our Lord's clothes. They had most likely first stripped our Lord naked, before nailing his hands and feet to the cross, and had laid his clothes on one side till they had finished their work. They now turned to the clothes, and, as they had done many a time on such occasions, proceeded to divide them. All four Evangelists particularly mention this, and evidently call our special attention to it. The division into four portions shows clearly that there were four soldiers employed, beside the centurion, in the work of crucifixion. Many commentators see in them emblems of the four quarters of the Gentile world. This, however, seems to me fanciful. A quaternion, a small party of four, was a common division of soldiers in those days, just as "a file" of men is among ourselves. (See Acts 12:4.) What the four portions of garments were we are left to conjecture. Hengstenberg thinks that they consisted of the covering of the head, the girdle, the shoes, and the under garment fitting to the body. Matthew's report of the Sermon on the Mount contains a clear distinction between a coat and a cloak. (Matthew 5:40.) For these four portions the soldiers probably cast lots, in order that each one might have his part decided, and to prevent wrangling about the unequal value of the portions. Others think that the language of John about the coat which was "not rent," is strong evidence that all the rest of our Lord's clothes were rent into four pieces, and that Hengstenberg's division of them will not stand. It must be admitted that there is much probability in this. It seems very unlikely that so much should be said about this seamless garment being not rent, if the other garments had not been torn in dividing them. Concerning the "coat" here mentioned, it is not easy to say positively what part of our Lord's dress it was. (a) Most commentators say that it was the long inner tunic, girt about the waist, and reaching almost to the feet, which was the principal garment of an inhabitant of the East,— a kind of loose smock-frock with sleeves, such as any one may see a pattern of, in Leonardo da Vinci's famous picture of the Lord's Supper. The objection to this view, to my mind, is the grave difficulty of explaining how such a garment could be seamless and woven throughout,— though I doubt not our Lord wore it, and it was the hem of such a garment the woman touched. (b) Some few commentators think it was the outer garment, a loose mantle or cape, thrown over the shoulders, which many wore above the tunic. Such a garment, having no sleeves, might easily be made in one piece without any seam, and perhaps was only drawn together or clasped about the shoulders. It is fair, nevertheless, to say that the Greek word here rendered "coat," ordinarily means the inward garment or tunic. (See Suicer and Parkhurst.) Becker's Charicles, however, on this Greek word, shows some reason for thinking it sometimes means the outward coat. The reader must judge for himself. The question is one which cannot be settled positively either way, and happily is not of any moment. To my own mind, the objection to the first and common view is very serious indeed, if not insuperable; but it may not appear so to others. The only thing we know for certain is that one portion of our Lord's dress was not rent, but made the subject of casting lots as to who should have it. As to the ancient fable that our Lord's coat was woven by his mother Mary when He was a child, grew with His growth, and never waxed old or wore out, it is a foolish apocryphal legend. Bengel observes that we never read of our Lord "rending" His own garments in desperate sorrow, like Job, Jacob, Joshua, Caleb, Jepthah, Hezekiah, Mordecai, Ezra, Paul, and Barnabas. (See Genesis 37:34; Numbers 14:6; Judges 11:35; 2 Kings 19:1; Esther 4:1; Ezra 9:3; Job 1:20; Acts 14:14.) On the incident recorded in this verse, Luther remarks, "This distribution of garments served for a sign that everything was done with Christ, just as with one who was abandoned, lost, and to be forgotten for ever." Even among ourselves, the division, sale, or giving away of a man's clothes, is a plain indication of his being dead, or given up for lost; just as among soldiers and sailors, when dead or missing, the effects are sold or distributed. Henry thinks that "the soldiers hoped to make something more than ordinary out of our Lord's clothes, having heard of cures wrought by the touch of the hem of His garment, or expecting that His admirers would give any money for them." But this seems unlikely and fanciful. Our Lord was treated, we should observe, just like all common criminals,— stripped naked, and His clothes sold under His eyes, as one dead already and cast off by man. It is noteworthy that in this, as in many other things, our Lord was, in a striking manner, our substitute. He was stripped naked, and reckoned, and dealt with as a guilty sinner, in order that we might be clothed with the garment of His perfect righteousness and reckoned innocent. v24.—[They said therefore among themselves, etc.] In this verse we are told that the conduct of the soldiers was a precise fulfilment of a prophecy delivered a thousand years before. (Psalms 22:18.) That prophecy foretold not only that Messiah's garments should be parted and distributed, but that men should "cast lots for His vesture." Little did the four rough Roman soldiers think that they were actually supplying evidence of the truth of the Scriptures! They only saw that our Lord's "coat" was a good and serviceable garment, which it was a pity to rend or tear, and therefore they agreed to cast lots who should have it. And yet, in so doing, they added to the great cloud of witnesses who prove the divine authority of the Bible. Men little consider that they are all instruments in God's hand for accomplishing His purposes. The importance of interpreting prophecy literally, and not figuratively, is strongly shown in this verse. The system of interpretation which unhappily prevails among many Christians— I mean the system of spiritualizing away all the plain statements of the prophets, and accommodating them to the Church of Christ— can never be reconciled with such a verse as this. The plain, literal meaning of words should evidently be the meaning placed on all the statements of Old Testament prophecy. This remark of course does not apply to symbolical prophecies, such as those of the seals, trumpets, and vials in Revelation. The typical meaning of this seamless and unrent coat of our Lord is a point on which fanciful theological writers have loved to dwell in every age of the Church of Christ. It represented, we are told by Augustine and many others, the unity of the Church, and it was an allusion to the priesthood of the Divine wearer! I frankly confess that I am unable to believe such notions, and I doubt extremely whether they were intended by the Holy Ghost. But it is a fact mentioned by Henry, that "those who opposed Luther's separation from the Church of Rome, urged much this seamless coat as an argument, and laid so much stress on it, that they were called Inconsutilistζ,— the seamless ones!" As to the lying legend that this seamless coat was preserved and handed down to the Church as a precious relic, it is scarcely worth while to mention it, except as a melancholy illustration of the corruption of man, and the apostacy of the Church of Rome. The holy coat of Trθves, and its exhibition, are a scandal and disgrace to Christianity. Suffice it to say, that any one who can seriously believe that our Lord's seamless coat, after falling into the hands of a heathen Romish soldier, was finally treasured up as a relic, or that the cross itself was kept safe and escaped destruction, must be so credulous a person that argument is thrown away on him. It is worth remembering, that when the first Adam fell by sin and was cast out of Eden, God mercifully clothed him and covered his nakedness. When the second Adam died as our substitute, and was counted "a curse" for us on the cross, He was stripped naked and His clothes sold. The object for which John concludes the verse with the words, "These things therefore the soldiers did," is not very apparent. Burgon suggests it may mean, "Such was the part which the soldiers played in this terrible tragedy. Uninfluenced by the Jews, without any direction from Pilate, these things the soldiers did." This however seems hardly satisfactory, because this was not all that the soldiers did.— I prefer thinking that John means to say, that he was actually an eye-witness of the soldiers unconsciously fulfilling an ancient prophecy: "I myself saw, with mine own eyes, the four soldiers casting lots on my Lord's coat; and I can testify that I saw the words of the Psalmist literally fulfilled." Lampe thinks that John makes this remark, in order to show how literally Scripture was fulfilled by men who were totally ignorant of Scripture. The Roman soldiers of course knew nothing of the Psalms, yet did the very things predicted in the Psalms. v25.—[Now there stood by the cross, etc.] A wonderfully striking incident is recorded in this and the two following verses, which is not found in the other three Gospels. John tells us that at this awful moment, Mary, the mother of Jesus, and other women, two if not three, stood by the cross on which our Lord hung. "Love is strong as death;" and even amidst the crowd of taunting Jews and rough Roman soldiers, these holy women were determined to stand by our Lord to the last, and to show their unceasing affection to Him. When we remember that our Lord was a condemned criminal, peculiarly hated by the chief priests, and executed by Roman soldiers, the faithfulness and courage of these holy women can never be sufficiently admired. As long as the world stands they supply a glorious proof of what grace can do for the weak, and of the strength that love to Christ can supply. When all men but one forsook our Lord, more than one woman boldly confessed Him. Women, in short, were the last at the cross and the first at the tomb. It is interesting to consider who and what they were, that stood by our Lord's cross as He hung upon it. John, the beloved disciple, was there, we know; though with characteristic modesty he does not directly name it. But John 19:26 shows clearly that he was one of the party. He might well be the one that "Jesus loved." No Apostle seems to have had such deep feeling towards our Lord as John.— Mary, the mother of our Lord (never called the Virgin Mary in Scripture) was there. We must suppose that she had come up from Galilee to the feast of the passover, in company with the other women who ministered to our Lord. She must now have been comparatively old, at least forty-eight years old. To represent her in pictures as a beautiful young woman at the time of the crucifixion is absurd. Who can doubt that when she saw her Son hanging on the cross, she must have realized the truth of old Simeon's prophecy, "A sword shall pierce through thine own soul also." (Luke 2:35.) Very striking and instructive is it to observe how very rarely she is named in the Gospel history.— Mary, the wife of Cleophas, or Alpheus, was there. The Greek leaves it uncertain whether it means daughter or wife; but nearly all think it must be wife. She seems to have been the mother of James and Jude the Apostles, and to have been related in some way to Mary, either as sister or sister-in-law. Hence James is called the "Lord's brother." She too must have been nearly as old as Mary, if we may judge by her having two sons who were Apostles.— Mary of Magdala, in Galilee, commonly called Mary Magdalene, was also there. Of her we only know that Jesus had cast out of her seven devils, and that none of all the women who ministered to our Lord, seem to have felt such deep gratitude to our Saviour, and to have demonstrated such deep affection. The common doctrine that she had once been a notorious breaker of the seventh commandment has no foundation in Scripture. She probably was the youngest of all the party, and as such had to risk more, and sacrifice her own feelings more than any, in pressing through a crowd of enemies to the foot of the cross. But were there only three women at the cross? This is a disputed question, and one which will probably never be settled, since the Greek wording of the verse before us leaves the point open either way. (a) Most commentators think that the words, "His mother's sister," belong to "Mary the wife of Cleophas," and are meant to define the relationship between that Mary and Mary the mother of our Lord. (b) Others, as Pearce, Bengel, and Alford, think that "His mother's sister" means a fourth woman, and that this woman was Salome the mother of James and John. The strongest argument in favour of this view is the distinct statement in Matthew's account of the crucifixion, that many women beheld the sight, "among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children,"— that is, Salome. (Matthew 27:56.) If she stood with Mary Magdalene looking on, why should we doubt that she stood with her at the cross? The suppression of her name is quite characteristic of John. She was his own mother, and he modestly keeps back her name, as he keeps back his own. In what way she was the "sister" to the mother of our Lord we do not know. But there is no reason against it, that I know of. According to this view, the women at the foot of the cross were four: viz., (1) Mary, the mother of Jesus. (2) The sister of our Lord's mother: i.e., Salome, the mother of John, who wrote this Gospel. (3) Mary, the wife of Alpheus and mother of two Apostles. (4) Mary Magdalene. The reader must decide for himself. The question happily is not one affecting our salvation. For myself I must frankly declare my belief that the second view is the right one, and that there were four women, and not three only, at the foot of the cross. The objection that the word "and" is omitted before "Mary the wife of Cleophas" is worthless. In almost every catalogue of the Apostles the same omission may be noticed. (See Acts 1:13; Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:14.) Whether all Christian women should always come forward and put themselves in such public and prominent positions as these holy women took up, is a grave question, about which each Christian woman must judge for herself. Considerations of physical strength and nervous self-command must not be overlooked. The four women who stood by the cross neither fainted nor went into hysterics, but were self-controlled, and calm. Let every one be persuaded in their own minds. Some women can do what others cannot. Why the fierce enemies of our Lord among the Jews, and the rough Roman soldiers, permitted these holy women to stand undisturbed by the cross, is a question we have no means of deciding. Possibly the Romans may have thought it only fair and reasonable to let a criminal's relatives and friends stand by him, when he could do the State no more harm, and they could not rescue him from death. Possibly the centurion who superintended the execution, may have felt some pity for the little weeping company of weak women. Who can tell but his kindness was a cup of cold water which was repaid him a hundred-fold? He said before the day ended, "Truly this was the Son of God." (Matthew 27:54.) Possibly John's acquaintance with the high priest, already mentioned, may have procured him and his companions some favour. All these, however, are only conjectures, and we cannot settle the point The Greek word rendered "stood" is literally "had stood." Does not this mean from the beginning of the crucifixion? v26, v27.—[When Jesus therefore saw His mother, etc.] The incident recorded in these two verses is wonderfully touching and affecting. Even in this trying season of bodily and mental agony, our blessed Lord did not forget others.— He had not forgotten His brutal murderers; but had prayed for them: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."— He had not forgotten his fellow-sufferers by His side. When one of the crucified malefactors cried to him, "Lord, remember me," He had at once answered him, and promised him a speedy entrance into Paradise.— And now He did not forget His mother. He saw her standing by the cross, and knew well her distress, and felt tenderly for her desolate condition, left alone in a wicked world, after having lost such a Son. He therefore commended her to the care of John, His most loving and tenderhearted and faithful disciple. He told John to look on her as his mother, and told His mother to look on John as her son. No better and wiser arrangement could have been made in every way. None would care so much for the mother of Jesus as the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who lay in His bosom at the last supper. No home could be so suitable to Mary, as the home of one who was, according to the view maintained above, son to her own sister Salome. The lessons of the whole transaction are deeply instructive. (a) We should mark the depth and width of our Lord's sympathies and affections. The Saviour on whom we are bid to repose the weight of our sinful souls is one whose love passeth knowledge. Shallow, skin-deep feelings in others, we all know, continually chill and disappoint us on every side in this world. But there is one whose mighty heart-affection knows no bottom. That one is Christ. (b) We should mark the high honour our Lord puts on the fifth commandment. Even in His last hour He magnifies it, and makes it honourable, by providing for His mother according to the flesh. The Christian who does not lay himself out to honour father and mother— both one and the other parent, is a very ignorant religionist. (c) We should mark that when Jesus died Joseph was probably dead, and that Mary had no other children beside our Lord. It is absurd to suppose that our Lord would have commended Mary to John, if she had had a husband or son to support her. The theory of some few writers, that Mary had other children by Joseph after Jesus was born, is very untenable, and grossly improbable. (d) We should mark what a strong condemnation the passage supplies to the whole system of Mary-worship, as held by the Roman Catholic Church. There is not here a trace of the doctrine that Mary is patroness of the saints, protectress of the Church, and one who can help others. On the contrary, we see her requiring protection herself, and commended to the care and protection of a disciple! Hengstenberg remarks, "Our Lord's design was not to provide for John, but to provide for His mother." Alford observes, "The Romanist idea that the Lord commended all His disciples, as represented by the beloved one, to the patronage of His mother, is simply absurd." (e) Finally, we should mark how Jesus honours those who honour and boldly confess Him. To John, who alone of all the eleven stood by the cross, He gives the high privilege of taking charge of His mother. As Henry pleasantly remarks, it is a sign of great confidence, and a mark of great honour, to be made a trustee and a guardian by a great person, for those he leaves behind at his death. To the women Jesus gives the honour of being specially named and recorded for their faithfulness and love, in a Gospel which is read all over the world in 200 languages. The Greek words rendered "his own home," mean literally, "his own things." It is a thoroughly indefinite expression. We can only suppose it means, that in [the] future, from that day, wherever John abode the mother of our Lord abode also. His home, in a word, became her home. There is no evidence whatever that John had any home in Jerusalem. If he had any home at all, it must have been in Galilee, near the lake of Gennesaret. Bengel, Besser, Ellicott, and Alford, from the phrase "hour," suggest that John took Mary home immediately, so that she did not see our Lord die, and then returned to the cross. This, however, seems to me very improbable. The mother of our Lord would surely stay by the cross to the last, if any woman did. John would not leave the cross, in my opinion, for a minute. His narrative of the crucifixion reads like that of an eye-witness from first to last. Hengstenberg takes the same view that I do. The word "woman," in the twenty-sixth verse, is noteworthy. It must not be pressed too far as implying the slightest disrespect or want of affection. The whole transaction here narrated overthrows such an idea. But I think it is remarkable that our Lord does not say, "Mother." And I cannot help thinking that, even at this awful moment, He would remind her that she must never suffer herself or others to presume on the relationship between her and Him, or claim any supernatural honour on the ground of being His mother. Henceforth she must daily remember, that her first aim must be to live the life of faith as a believing woman, like all other Christian women. Her blessedness did not consist in being related to Christ according to the flesh, but in believing and keeping Christ's Word. I firmly believe that, even on the cross, Jesus foresaw the future heresy of "Mary-worship." Therefore He said "Woman," and did not say "Mother." Besser remarks, "Some old writers, as Bonaventura, say that Christ perhaps avoided the sweet name of mother, that He might not lacerate Mary's heart with such a tender word of farewell. Others see in Christ's manner of speaking a reference to the seed of the woman who was to bruise the serpent's head. The most obvious view is, that the Lord, through this name woman, would direct His mother into that love which knows Christ no more after the flesh (2 Corinthians 5:16), and would also declare to us that in the midst of His work of atonement He felt Himself equally bound close to all sinners, and that He was not nearer to His mother than He was to thee and me." This part of John's narrative of Christ's passion, contains points of deep interest, which are silently passed over by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The reason of this silence we are not told. Suffice it for us to remember that, both in what they recorded and in what they did not record, all four Evangelists wrote by inspiration of God. Let us mark, for one thing, in these verses, the frequent fulfillments of prophetic Scripture throughout every part of Christ's crucifixion. Three several predictions are specially mentioned, in Exodus, Psalms, and Zechariah, which received their accomplishment at the cross. Others, as every well-informed Bible-reader knows, might easily be added. All combine to prove one and the same thing. They prove that the death of our Lord Jesus Christ at Golgotha was a thing foreseen and predetermined by God. Hundreds of years before the crucifixion, every part of the solemn transaction was arranged in the Divine counsels, and the minutest particulars were revealed to the Prophets. From first to last it was a thing foreknown, and every portion of it was in accordance with a settled plan and design. In the highest, fullest sense, when Christ died, He "died according to the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:3.) We need not hesitate to regard such fulfillments of prophecy as strong evidence of the Divine authority of God's Word. The Prophets foretell not only Christ's death, but the particulars of His death. It is impossible to explain so many accomplishments of predicted circumstances upon any other theory. To talk of luck, chance, and accidental coincidence, as sufficient explanation, is preposterous and absurd. The only rational account is the inspiration of God. The Prophets who foretold the particulars of the crucifixion, were inspired by Him who foresees the end from the beginning; and the books they wrote under His inspiration ought not to be read as human compositions, but Divine. Great indeed are the difficulties of all who pretend to deny the inspiration of the Bible. It really requires more unreasoning faith to be an infidel than to be a Christian. The man who regards the repeated fulfillments of minute prophecies about Christ's death, such as the prophecies about His dress, His thirst, His pierced side, and His bones, as the result of chance, and not of design, must indeed be a credulous man. We should mark, secondly, in these verses, the peculiarly solemn saying which came from our Lord's lips just before He died. John relates that "when He had received the vinegar, He said, it is finished; and He bowed His head and gave up the ghost." It is surely not too much to say, that of all the seven famous sayings of Christ on the cross, none is more remarkable than this, which John alone has recorded. The precise meaning of this wondrous expression, "It is finished," is a point which the Holy Ghost has not thought good to reveal to us. There is a depth about it, we must all instinctively feel, which man has probably no line to fathom. Yet there is perhaps no irreverence in conjecturing the thoughts that were in our Lord's mind, when the word was spoken. The finishing of all the known and unknown sufferings which He came to endure, as our Substitute,— the finishing of the ceremonial law, which He came to wind up and fulfill, as the true Sacrifice for sin,— the finishing of the many prophecies, which He came to accomplish,— the finishing of the great work of man's redemption, which was now close at hand,— all this, we need not doubt, our Lord had in view when He said, "It is finished." There may have been more behind [it(?)], for aught we know. But in handling the language of such a Being as our Savior, on such an occasion, and at so mysterious a crisis of His history, it is well to be cautious. "The place whereon we stand is holy ground." One comfortable thought, at all events, stands out most clearly on the face of this famous expression. We rest our souls on a "finished work," if we rest them on the work of Jesus Christ the Lord. We need not fear that either sin, or Satan, or law shall condemn us at the last day. We may lean back on the thought, that we have a Savior who has done all, paid all, accomplished all, performed all that is necessary for our salvation. We may take up the challenge of the Apostle, "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died: yea, rather that is risen again; who is even at the right hand of God; who also maketh intercession for us." (Romans 8:34.) When we look at our own works, we may well be ashamed of their imperfections. But when we look at the finished work of Christ, we may feel peace. We "are complete in Him," if we believe. (Colossians 2:10.) We should mark, lastly, in these verses, the reality and truth of Christ's death. We are told that "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." This incident, small as it may seem at first sight, supplies probable proof that the heart of our blessed Lord was pierced, and that life was consequently extinct. He did not merely faint, or swoon away, or become insensible, as some have dared to insinuate. His heart actually ceased to beat, and He actually died. Great, indeed, was the importance of this fact. We must all see, on a moment's reflection, that without a real death there could be no real sacrifice; that without a real death there could be no real resurrection; and that without a real death and real resurrection, the whole of Christianity is a house built on sand, and has no foundation at all. Little indeed did that reckless Roman soldier dream that he was a mighty helper of our holy religion, when he thrust his spear into our Lord's side. That the "blood and water" mentioned in this place had a deep spiritual meaning, we can hardly doubt. John himself seems to refer to them in his first Epistle, as highly significant. "This is He that came by water and blood." (1 John 5:6.) The Church in every age has been of one mind in holding that they are emblems of spiritual things. Yet the precise meaning of the blood and water is a subject about which Christians have never agreed, and perhaps will never agree till the Lord returns. The favorite theory that the blood and water mean the two Sacraments, however plausible and popular, may be reasonably regarded as somewhat destitute of solid foundation. Baptism and the Lord's Supper were ordinances already in existence when our Lord died, and they needed no reappointing. It is surely not necessary to drag in these two blessed Sacraments on every occasion, and to insist on thrusting them forward, as the hidden sense of every disputed text where the number "two" is mentioned. Such pertinacious application of hard places in Scripture to Baptism and the Lord's Supper does no real good, and brings no real honor to the Sacraments. It is questionable whether it does not tend to vulgarize them, and bring them into contempt. The true meaning of the blood and water is probably to be sought in the famous prophecy of Zechariah, where he says, "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and uncleanness." (Zechariah 13:1.) When was that fountain so truly and really opened as in the hour when Christ died? What emblem of atonement and purification was so well known to the Jews as blood and water? Why then should we hesitate to believe that the flow of "blood and water" from our Lord's side was a significant declaration to the Jewish nation, that the true fountain for sin was at length thrown open, and that henceforth sinners might come boldly to Christ for pardon, and wash and be clean? This interpretation, at any rate, deserves serious thought and consideration. Whatever view we take of the blood and water, let us make sure that we ourselves are "washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb." (Revelation 7:14.) It will matter nothing at the last day, that we held during life the most exalted view of the sacraments, if we never came to Christ by faith, and never had personal dealings with Him. Faith in Christ is the one thing needful. "He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." (1 John 5:12.) ================== Notes— v28.—[After this.] When our Lord had commended His mother, Mary, to John, I believe that the miraculous darkness for three hours came on. During those three hours I believe our Lord said nothing, except "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" As the darkness was passing away, He said, "I thirst." This, and the two last sayings, "It is finished," and "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit," were all that He said during the last three hours. Thus three of His seven sayings on the cross were before the darkness, and four after it, or during it. The order of the famous seven sayings was as follows:— 1. "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." 2. "To day shalt thou be with Me in paradise." 3. "Woman behold thy son. Behold thy mother." 4. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me." 5. "I thirst." 6. "It is finished." 7. "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." [Jesus knowing...accomplished, etc.] In order to understand this verse aright, there is one point concerning our Lord's death which must be carefully remembered. His death was entirely a voluntary act on His part. In this one respect His death was unlike that of a common man; and we need not wonder at it when we consider that He was God and man in one Person. The final separation between body and soul, in His case, could not take place until He willed it; and all the power of Jews and Romans together could not have effected it against His will. We die because we cannot help it: Christ died because He willed to die, and not until the moment arrived when He saw it best. He said Himself, "No man taketh my life from Me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." (John 10:18.) As a matter of fact, we know that our Lord was crucified about nine o'clock in the morning, and that He died about three o'clock in the afternoon of the same day. Mere physical suffering would not account for this. A person crucified in full health was known sometimes to linger on alive for three days! It is evident therefore that our Lord willed to give up the ghost in the same day that He was crucified, for some wise reason. This reason, we can easily suppose, was to secure the fullest publicity for His atoning death. He died in broad day-light, in the sight of myriads of spectators; and thus the reality of His death could never be denied. This voluntariness and free choice of His death, and of the hour of His death, in my judgment, lie at the bottom of the verse before us. Remembering all this, I believe that the sense of the verse before us must be paraphrased in the following way:— "After this, Jesus knowing in His own mind that all things were now practically accomplished, which He came into the world to do, and knowing that it was expedient that His death should be a most public event, in the face of the crowds assembled to view His crucifixion, proceeded to say the last words which He intended to say, before giving up the ghost at three o'clock, and by saying them fulfilled a prophecy of Scripture."— Nothing in the details of our Lord's death, we must always remember, was accidental or by chance. Every part of the great sacrifice for sin was foreordained and arranged in the eternal counsels of the Trinity, even to the words which He was to speak on the cross. The expression "I thirst," was chiefly used, I believe, in order to afford a public testimony of the reality and intensity of His bodily sufferings, and to prevent any one supposing, because of His marvellous calmness and patience, that He was miraculously free from suffering. On the contrary, He would have all around Him know that He felt what all severely wounded persons, and especially all crucified persons felt,— a burning and consuming thirst. So that when we read that "He suffered for sins," we are to understand that He really and truly suffered. Henry observes, "The torments of hell are represented by a violent thirst, in the complaint of the rich man who begged for a drop of water to cool his tongue. To that everlasting thirst we had all been condemned, if Christ had not suffered on the cross, and said, 'I thirst.'" Scott observes that Christ suffered thirst, in order that we might drink the water of life for ever, and thirst no more. Quesnel remarks, "The tongue of Jesus Christ underwent its own particular torment, in order to atone for the ill-use which men make of their tongues by blasphemy, evil-speaking, vanity, lying, gluttony, and drunkenness." The theory that Christ only said "I thirst," in order to fulfil Scripture, is to my mind unsatisfactory and unreasonable. His saying "I thirst," was a fulfilment of Scripture, but He did not merely say it in order to fulfil Scripture. John, according to his style of writing, only meant that by His saying "I thirst," and having His thirst relieved by vinegar, the words of Psa 69:21, were fulfilled. The Greek word which is rendered "accomplished," is the same that is rendered "finished" in John 19:30. This difference, within two verses, in translating the same word, is one of those blemishes in our authorized version which must be regretted. The connection of the sentence, "that the Scripture might be fulfilled," is not very clear to my mind. Is it to be taken with the words that follow in the verse, or with those that immediately precede it?— The common view taken, undoubtedly, is to connect the sentence with "I thirst." The sense will then be, "Jesus saith, I thirst, so that by this the Scripture was fulfilled." But is it necessary to make this connection? Might not the sentence be connected with the one which precedes? The sense will then be, "Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, so that the Scripture was fulfilled concerning Himself, said, I thirst." In three other places in John where the sentence occurs, "that the Scripture might be fulfilled," the connection is with what goes before, and not with what follows. (John 17:12; John 19:24-36.) Semler and Tholuck incline to take this view. But I admit that the matter is doubtful, and it certainly is not one of vital importance. One thing only we must remember. Our Lord did not say, "I thirst," for no other purpose than to fulfil the Scriptures. He spoke with far deeper and stronger reasons, and yet by His speaking and afterwards drinking vinegar, a passage in the prophetical Psalms was fulfilled. v29.—[Now there was set...vessel....vinegar.] This would be more literally rendered "there was lying" a vessel. In all probability this was a vessel full of the sour wine in common use among the Roman soldiers. [And they filled a sponge, etc.] The persons here spoken of seem to be the Roman soldiers who carried out the details of the crucifixion. The vinegar was theirs, and it is not likely that any one would have dared to interfere with the criminal hanging on the cross, except the soldiers. The act recorded here must be carefully distinguished from that recorded in Matthew 27:34, and is the same as that recorded in Matthew 27:48. The first drink of vinegar and gall, commonly given to criminals to deaden their pains, our Lord refused. The second, here mentioned, was given, I believe, notwithstanding what some writers say, in kindness and compassion, and our Lord did not refuse to accept it. A sponge filled with vinegar and put on the end of a stick, was far the easiest and most convenient way of giving drink to one whose head was at least seven or eight feet from the ground, and whose hands, being nailed to the cross, were of course unable to take any cup, and put it to his mouth. From a sponge full of liquid, pressed against the lips, a crucified person might suck some moisture, and receive some benefit. What this "hyssop" here mentioned was, is a point by no means clearly ascertained. Casaubon speaks of the question as a proverbial difficulty. Some think that it was a branch of the plant hyssop fastened to the end of a reed. This seems very improbable, because of the "sponge." Dr. Forbes Royle maintains that it was the caper plant, which bears a stick about three or four feet long. Hengstenberg gives evidence from Talmudic writers that the hyssop was among the branches used at the feast of tabernacles, and that its stalk was an ell long. Like many other questions of Bible natural history, the point must probably be left obscure. Some see deep meaning in the mention of hyssop, as the plant used in the ceremonial sprinklings of the law of Moses. (See Hebrews 9:19.) Hyssop, moreover, was used at the passover in sprinkling the door posts with blood. (Exodus 12:22.) Yet the allusion, to say the least, seems doubtful, nor is it quite clear how any typical meaning can be got out of the mention of the plant in this place. It is very noteworthy that even in the roughest, hardest kind of men, like these heathen soldiers, there is sometimes a tender and compassionate spot in the breast. According to Matthew's account the cry, "I thirst," must have followed soon after the cry, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me." This exhibition of great mental and bodily agony combined, in my opinion, touched the feelings of the soldiers, and one of them at least ran to give our Lord vinegar. We should remember this in dealing with men. Even the worst have often a soft place, if we can find it out, in their inward nature. Cyril maintains strongly, I must admit, that the act of the soldiers in giving our Lord the sponge full of vinegar, was not an act of kindness, but of mockery and insult. I cannot however, agree with him. He does not appear to distinguish between the first drink which our Lord refused at the beginning of His crucifixion, and the last which He accepted; but speaks of them as one and the same. Theophylact agrees with Cyril. v30.—[When Jesus therefore...finished.] Our Lord having now given plain proof that He had endured intense bodily suffering, and that like any other human sufferer He could appreciate a slight relief of thirst, such as the vinegar afforded, proceeded to utter one of His last and most solemn sayings: "It is finished." This remarkable expression, in the Greek, is one single word in a perfect tense, "It has been completed." It stands here in majestic simplicity, without note or comment from John, and we are left entirely to conjecture what the full meaning of it is. For eighteen hundred years Christians have explained it as they best can, and some portion of its meaning in all likelihood has been discovered. Yet it is far from unlikely that such a word, spoken on such an occasion, by such a person, at such a moment, just before death, contains depths which no one has ever completely fathomed. Some meanings there are, which no one perhaps will dispute, belonging to this grand expression, which I will briefly mention. No one single meaning, we may be sure, exhausts the whole phrase. It is rich, full, and replete with deep truths. (a) Our Lord meant that His great work of redemption was finished. He had, as Daniel foretold, "finished transgression, made an end of sin, made reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness." (Daniel 9:24.) After thirty-three years, since the day when He was born in Bethlehem, He had done all, paid all, performed all, suffered all that was needful to save sinners, and satisfy the justice of God. He had fought the battle and won it, and in two days would give proof of it by rising again. (b) Our Lord meant that God's determinate counsel and forewill concerning His death was now accomplished and finished. All that had been appointed from all eternity that He should suffer, He had now suffered. (c) Our Lord meant that He had finished the work of keeping God's holy law. He had kept it to the uttermost, as our Head and representative, and Satan had found nothing in Him. He had magnified the law and made it honourable, by doing perfectly all its requirements. "Woe unto us," says Burkitt, "if Christ had left but one farthing of our debt unpaid. We must have lain in hell insolvent to all eternity." (d) Our Lord meant that He had finished the types and figures of the ceremonial law. He had at length offered up the perfect sacrifice, of which every Mosaic sacrifice was a type and symbol, and there remained no more need of offerings for sin. The old covenant was finished. (e) Our Lord meant that He had finished and fulfilled the prophesies of the Old Testament. At length, as the Seed of the woman, he had bruised the serpent's head, and accomplished the work which Messiah was engaged by covenant to come and perform. (f) Finally, our Lord meant that His sufferings were finished. Like His Apostle, He had "finished His course." His long life of pain and contradiction from sinners, and above all His intense sufferings, as bearer of our sins on Gethsemane and Calvary, were at last at an end. The storm was over, and the worst was passed. The cup of suffering was at last drained to the very dregs. Thoughts such as these come to my own mind, when I read the solemn phrase, "It is finished." But I am far from saying that the phrase does not contain a great deal more. In interpreting such a saying, I am deeply conscious that there is an inexhaustible fulness in our Lord's words. I am sure we are more likely to make too little of them than to make too much. Luther remarks, "In this word, 'It is finished,' will I comfort myself. I am forced to confess that all my finishing of the will of God is imperfect, piecemeal work, while yet the law urges on me that not so much as one tittle of it must remain unaccomplished. Christ is the end of the law. What it requires, Christ has performed." To the objection of some persons, that all things were not completely finished and accomplished, until Jesus rose again and ascended into heaven, Calvin replies that Jesus knew that all things were now practically accomplished, and that nothing now remained to hinder His finishing the work He came to do. [And He bowed His head.] This is the action of one dying. When the will ceases to exercise power over muscles and nerves, at once those parts of the body which are not rigid like the bones, collapse and fall in any direction to which their centre of gravity inclines them. The head of a crucified person would naturally in death droop forward on the breast, the neck being no longer kept stiff by the will. This is what seems to have happened in the case of our Lord. May we not gather from this expression, that our Lord up to this moment held up His head erect, firm, steady, and unmoved, even under extreme pain? Alford remarks how this little incident was evidently recorded by an eye-witness. The miraculous darkness must have now passed away, in order to let this movement of the head be seen. [And gave up the ghost.] These words mean, literally, "delivered up the spirit." It is an expression never used of any dying person in the Bible except our Lord. It is an expression denoting voluntary action. He delivered up His spirit of His own free will, because the hour was come when He chose to do it. He had just said, after using the phrase "It is finished,"— "Father into Thy hands I commend my spirit,"— and then He proceeded to deliver up His spirit into the hands of God the Father. It is the Father, and none else, to whom the words, "He delivered up," must apply. Augustine observes, "Not against His will did the Saviour's spirit leave His flesh, but because He would, and when He would, and how He would. Who is there that can even go to sleep when he will, as Jesus died when He would? Who thus puts off his clothes when he will, as Jesus unclothed Himself of His flesh when He would? Who goes thus out of his door when he will, as Jesus, when He would, went out of the world?" In death, as well as in life, our Lord has left us an example. Of course we cannot, like Him, choose the moment of our death, and in this, as in everything else, we must be content to follow Him at an enormous distance. The best of saints is a miserable copy of his Master. Nevertheless, we too, as Cyril observes, must endeavour to put our souls into God's hands, if God is really our Father, when the last hour of our lives comes; and like Jesus, to place them by faith in our Father's keeping, and trust our Father to take care of them. Above all, let us never forget, as we read of Christ's death, that He died for our sins, as our Substitute. His death is our life. He died that we might live. We who believe on Christ shall live for evermore, sinners as we are, because Christ died for us, the innocent for the guilty. Satan cannot drag us away to everlasting death in hell. The second death cannot harm us. We may safely say,— "Who can condemn me, or slay my soul? I know well that I deserve death, and that I ought to die, because of my sins. But then my blessed Head and Substitute died for me, and when He died, I, His poor weak member, was reckoned to die also. Get thee behind me, Satan, for Christ was crucified and died. My debt is paid, and thou canst not demand it twice over."— For ever let us bless God that Christ "gave up the ghost," and really died upon the cross, before myriads of witnesses. That "giving up the ghost" was the hinge on which all our salvation turned. In vain Christ's life and miracles and preaching, if Christ had not at last died for us! We needed not merely a teacher, but an atonement, and the death of a Substitute. The mightiest transaction that ever took place on earth since the fall of man, was accomplished when Jesus "gave up the ghost." The careless crowd around the cross saw nothing but the common death of a common criminal. But in the eyes of God the Father the promised payment for a world's sin was at last effected, and the kingdom of heaven was thrown wide open to all believers. The finest pictures of the crucifixion that artists have ever painted, give a miserably insufficient idea of what took place when Jesus "gave up the ghost." They can show a suffering man on a cross, but they cannot convey the least notion of what was really going on,— the satisfaction of God's broken law, the payment of sinners' debt to God, and the complete atonement for a world's sin. The precise physical cause of the death of Christ is a very interesting subject, which must be reverently approached, but deserves attention. Dr. Stroud, in his book on the subject, takes a view which is supported by the opinions of three eminent Edinburgh physicians, the late Sir James Simpson, Dr. Begbie, and Dr. Struthers. This view is that the immediate cause of our Lord's decease was rupture of the heart. Dr. Simpson argues that all the circumstances of our Lord's death,— His crying with a loud voice just before death, not like an exhausted person, and His sudden giving up the ghost,— confirm this view very strongly. He also says that "strong mental emotions, produce sometimes laceration or rupture of the walls of the heart;" and he adds, "If ever a human heart was riven and ruptured by the mere amount of mental agony endured, it would surely be that of our Redeemer." Above all, he argues that the rupture of the heart would go far to account for the flow of blood and water from our Lord's side, when pierced with a spear. Dr. Simpson's very interesting letter on the subject, will be found in the appendix to "Hanna's Last Days of our Lord's Passion." Concerning the deep question as to what became of our Lord's soul when He gave up the ghost, it must suffice to believe that His soul went to paradise, the place of the departed spirits of believers. He said to the penitent thief, "To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise." (Luke 23:43.) This is the true meaning of the article, "descended into hell," in the Belief. "Hell" in that clause certainly does not mean the place of punishment, but the separate state or place of departed spirits. Some theologians hold that, between His death and resurrection "He went and preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19); and proclaimed the accomplishment of His work of atonement. This, to say the least, is doubtful. But Athanasius, Ambrose, Zwingle, Calvin, Erasmus, Calovius, and Alford hold the view. Concerning the miraculous signs which accompanied our Lord's death,— the darkness from twelve o'clock to three, the earthquake, the rending of the temple veil,— John is silent, and doubtless for some wise reason. But we may well believe that they struck myriads with awe and astonishment, and perhaps smoothed the way for our Lord's burial in Joseph's tomb, without opposition or objection. v31.—[The Jews therefore, because it was, etc.] The "Jews" in this verse, as in many other places in John's Gospel, can only mean the chief priests and leaders of the nation at Jerusalem; the same men who had pressed on Pilate our Lord's crucifixion,— Annas, Caiaphas, and their companions. The "preparation" means the day preceding the passover sabbath. That sabbath being pre-eminently a "high day," or, to render the Greek literally, a "great" day in the year, the Friday, or day preceding it, was devoted to special preparations. Hence the day went by the name of "the preparation of the sabbath." The expression makes it certain that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. The Jews saw clearly that, unless they took active measures to prevent it, the body of our Lord would remain all night hanging on the tree of the cross, the law would be broken (Deuteronomy 21:23), and a dead body would hang throughout the sabbath in full view of the temple, and close by the city walls. Therefore they made haste to have Him taken down from the cross and buried. The "breaking of the legs" of crucified criminals, in order to despatch them, seems to have been a common accompaniment of this barbarous mode of execution, when it was necessary to make an end of them, and get them out of the way. In asking Pilate to allow this breaking of legs, they did nothing but what was usual. But for anything we can see, the thing would not have been done if the Jews had not asked.— The verse supplies a wonderful example of the way in which God can make the wickedest men unconsciously carry out His purposes, and promote His glory. If the Jews had not interfered this Friday afternoon, for anything we can see, Pilate would have allowed our Lord's body to hang upon the cross till Sunday or Monday, and perhaps to see corruption. The Jews procured our Lord's burial the very day that He died, and thus secured the fulfilment of His famous prophecy: "Destroy this temple of my body, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19.) If He had not been buried till Sunday or Monday, He could not have risen again the third day after His death. As it was, the Jews managed things so that our Lord was laid in the grave before the evening of Friday, and was thus enabled to fulfil the famous type of Jonah, and give the sign He had promised to give of His Messiahship, by lying three days in the earth, and then rising again the third day after He died. All this could not have happened if the Jews had not interfered, and got Him taken from the cross and buried on Friday afternoon!— How true it is that the wickedest enemies of God are only axes and saws and hammers in His hands, and are ignorantly His instruments for doing His work in the world. The restless, busy, meddling of Caiaphas and his companions, was actually one of the causes that Christ rose the third day after death, and His Messiahship was proved. Pilate was their tool: but they were God's tools! The Romans, in all probability, would have left our Lord's body hanging on the cross till sun and rain had putrefied and consumed it, had such a thing been possible. Bishop Pearson says it was a common rule of Roman law not to permit sepulture to the body of a crucified person. The burial, therefore, was entirely owing to the request of the Jews. The providence of God ordered things so that they who interceded for His crucifixion interceded for His burial. And by so doing they actually paved the way for the crowning miracle of His resurrection! Let us mark the miserable scrupulosity that is sometimes compatible with the utmost deadness of conscience. Thus we see men making ado about a dead body remaining on the cross on the Sabbath, at the very time when they had just murdered an innocent living person with the most flagrant injustice and monstrous cruelty. It is a specimen of "straining out a gnat, and swallowing a camel." v32.—[Then came the soldiers, etc.] Pilate having given his consent to the request of the Jews, the Roman soldiers proceeded to break the legs of the criminals, and began with the two thieves. Why they began with them is by no means clear. If the three crosses were all in a row, it is hard to see why the two outer criminals of the three should have their legs broken first, and the one in the centre be left to the last. We must suppose one of three things in order to explain this. (a) Possibly two of the soldiers broke the legs of one malefactor, and the other two the legs of the other. Reason and common-sense point out that it does not require four men to do this horrid work on a helpless, unresisting, crucified person. Thus, having finished their work at the two outward crosses, they would come last to the centre one. (b) Possibly the two outward crosses may have been rather forwarder in position than the central one, so that the sufferers might see each others' faces. In that case the soldiers would naturally begin with the crosses they came to first. This, perhaps, would account for the penitent thief having read the word "King" over our Lord's head on the cross. (c) Possibly the soldiers saw that our Lord was dead, even before they came up to Him. At any rate they probably saw that He was still and motionless, and thus suspecting that He was dead, they did not trouble themselves with His body, but began with the two who evidently were yet alive. It is noteworthy that the penitent thief, even after his conversion, had more suffering to go through before He entered paradise. The grace of God and the pardon of sin did not deliver him from the agony of having his legs broken. When Christ undertakes to save our souls, He does not undertake to deliver us from bodily pains and a conflict with the last enemy. Penitents, as well as impenitents, must taste death and all its accompaniments. Conversion is not heaven, though it leads to it. Scott remarks that those who broke the legs of the penitent thief, and hastened his end, were unconscious instruments of fulfilling our Lord's promise, "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." How the legs of crucified criminals were broken we do not know; but it was probably done in the roughest manner. With such tools at hand as the hammers used for driving in the nails, and the mattocks and spades used for putting the cross in the ground, the soldiers could hardly want instruments. It must be remembered that a simple fracture would not cause death. The Greek word which we render "break," means, literally, "shiver to pieces." May it not be feared that this is the true meaning here? v33.—[But when they came to Jesus, etc.] This verse contains the first proof of the mighty fact that our Lord really died. We are told that the soldiers did not break His legs, because they "saw that He was dead already." Accustomed as Roman soldiers necessarily were to see death in every form, wounds of every kind, and dead bodies of every description, and trained to take away human life by their profession, they were of all men least likely to make a mistake about such a matter. Thus we have it most expressly recorded, that the soldiers "saw that He was dead already," and therefore did not break His legs. Our salvation hinges so entirely on Jesus Christ's vicarious death, that a moment's reflection will show us the divine wisdom of the fact being thoroughly proved. His unbelieving enemies could never say that He did not really die, and that He was only in a swoon, or fainting-fit, or state of insensibility. The Roman soldiers are witnesses that on the centre cross of the three they saw a dead man. v34.—[But one...spear...pierced His side.] Here we have the second proof that our Lord did really die. One of the soldiers, determined to make sure work and to leave nothing uncertain, thrust his spear into our Lord's side, in all probability directing his thrust at the heart, as the seat of vitality. That thrust made it certain, if there had been any doubt before, that the body on the central cross was actually dead. They believed it from appearance, and perhaps from touch, when they first came up to the cross. They made it quite certain by the thrust of the spear. The body of a person in a swoon would have given some sign of life, when pierced with a spear. The gross inaccuracy of those pictures which represent this soldier as a horseman, is worth noticing. Our Lord's body was easily within reach of the thrust of a spear in the hands of a foot soldier. There is no evidence whatever that any Roman cavalry were near the cross! The theory of Bishop Pearson, that this soldier pierced our Lord's side in anger and impatience, as if provoked to find Him dead, does not appear to me well-founded. It is not likely that the soldiers would be angry at finding a state of things which saved them trouble. To me it seems far more likely that the thrust was the hasty, careless act of a rough soldier, accustomed to prove in this way whether a body was alive or dead. I have heard it said by an eye-witness, that some of the Cossacks who followed our retreating cavalry, after the famous Balaclava charge, in the Crimean war, were seen to prick the bodies of fallen soldiers with their spears, in order to see whether they were dead or alive. Theophylact suggests that this soldier thrust the spear into our Lord's side in order to gratify the wicked Jews who stood by. Besser remarks, most sensibly, "Even the soldier's spear was guided by the Father's hand." [And forthwith...blood and water.] The remarkable fact here recorded has given rise to considerable difference of opinion. (a) Some, as Grotius, Calvin, Beza, and others, hold that this issue of blood and water was a proof that the heart or pericardium was pierced, and death in consequence quite certain. They say that the same result would follow from a thrust into the side of any person lately dead, and that blood and water, or something closely resembling it, would immediately flow out. They maintain, therefore, that there was nothing supernatural in the circumstance recorded. (b) Others, as most of the Fathers, Brentius, Musculus, Calovius, Lampe, Lightfoot, Rollock, Jansenius, Bengel, Horsley, and Hengstenberg, hold that this issue of blood and water was supernatural, extraordinary, unusual, and contrary to all experience; and they maintain that it was a special miracle. The question is one of those which will probably never be settled. We are not in possession of sufficiently precise information to justify a very positive opinion. We do not know for a certainty that the left side of our Lord was pierced and not the right. We do not know exactly how much blood and water flowed out, whether a large quantity or a very little. That a miracle might take place at such a death, on such an occasion, and in the body of such a Person, we have no right to deny. The mere facts that, when our Lord hung on the cross, the sun was darkened, and, when He gave up the ghost, the veil of the temple was rent in twain, and the rocks rent, and the earth quaked, might well prepare our minds to see nothing extraordinary in a miracle taking place, and almost to expect it. Perhaps the safest line to adopt is to combine both views. The thrust of the spear into the side caused blood to flow, and proved that the seat of vitality in the body was pierced. The extraordinary and unusual flow of blood and water was a supernatural event, and meant to teach spiritual lessons. I may be allowed to say that three eminent medical men in large practice, whom I have ventured to consult on this verse, are all of one mind,— that any large flow of blood and water from a dead body is contrary to all ordinary experience. Each of them, singularly enough, has expressed this opinion independently, and without any communication with the other two. Concerning the symbolical meaning of this flow of "blood and water" from our Lord's side much has been written in every age of the Church. That it had a deep spiritual sense appears almost certain from John's words in his first Epistle. (1 John 5:6-8.) But what the real symbolical meaning was, is a very disputable question. (a) The common opinion is, that the blood and water symbolized the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, both given by Christ and emanating from Him, and both symbols of atonement, cleansing, and forgiveness. This is the view of Chrysostom, Augustine, Andrews, and a large body of divines, both ancient and modern. I cannot myself receive this opinion. In matters like this I dare not call any man master, or endorse an interpretation of Scripture, when I do not feel convinced that it is true. I cannot see the necessity of dragging in the sacraments at every point in the exposition of God's Word, as some do. (b) My own opinion is most decided, that the flow of blood and water, whether supernatural or not, was meant to be a symbolical fulfilment of the famous prophecy in Zechariah: "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness." (Zechariah 13:1.) It was a practical declaration, by fact and deed, to all Jews, that by Christ's death that famous prophecy was fulfilled, and that now at last there was a fountain opened for sinners, and a way of atonement and forgiveness made plain by Christ's death. The moment He was dead this fountain was opened and began to flow. Over the bleeding side of our Lord there might have been written, "Behold the fountain for all sin." It is no small evidence to my mind, in favour of this view, that this famous prophecy occurs only five verses after the text immediately quoted by John in this very chapter, "they shall look on Him whom they pierced." (Zechariah 12:10.) Augustine sees a type of this wound in our Lord's side, from which flowed blood and water, in the door in the side of Noah's ark, by which the living creatures entered in and were preserved from drowning! He also sees another type of the transaction in the first Adam sleeping and Eve being formed out of his side! The opinion held by some, that this "blood and water" warrant the mixture of water and wine in the Lord's Supper, seems to me utterly untenable. As Musculus sensibly observes, it was not "wine and water," but "blood and water" that flowed from our Lord's side. There is not the slightest evidence that our Lord used water at the institution of the Lord's Supper. That "blood" was the symbol of atonement, and "water" of cleansing, every careful reader of the Old Testament must know. The two things are brought together by Paul in Hebrews 9:19. The smiting of the rock by Moses, and water flowing forth, was also typical of the event before us. Lightfoot mentions a Jewish tradition that blood and water flowed from the rock at first. Henry says, "The blood and water signified the two great benefits which all believers partake of through Christ,— justification and sanctification. Blood stands for remission, water for regeneration; blood for atonement, water for purification. The two must always go together. Christ hath joined them together, and we must not think to put them asunder. They both flowed from the pierced side of our Redeemer." v35.—[And he that saw it bare record, etc.] This singular verse, by common consent, can only refer to John. It is as though he said, "The fact that I now testify to I saw with my own eyes; and my testimony is true, and accurate, and trustworthy, and I know that I say true things in recording the fact, so that you to whom I write need not hesitate to believe me. I stood by. I saw it. I was an eye-witness, and I do not write by hear-say." The Greek word rendered "true" in the second place in this verse, means, literally, "true things." The question arises naturally, To what does John refer in this peculiar verse? (a) Does he refer only to the issue of blood and water from our Lord's side, as a singularly miraculous event? (b) Or does he refer to the thrust of the spear into our Lord's side, as a convincing proof that our Lord really died? (c) Or does he refer to the fact that our Lord's legs were not broken, and that he thus saw the great type of the passover-lamb fulfilled? I decidedly lean to the opinion that the verse refers to all the three things I have mentioned together, and not to any one of them only. All three things were so remarkable, and so calculated to strike the mind of a pious and intelligent Jew, and all happened in such close and rapid succession, that John emphatically records that he saw all the three with his own eyes. He seems to say, "I saw myself that not a bone of the Lamb of God was broken, so that He fulfilled the type of the passover. I saw myself a spear thrust into His heart, so that He was a true Sacrifice, and really died. And I saw myself that blood and water came out of His side, and I beheld a fulfilment of the old prophecy of a fountain for sin being opened." When we consider the immense importance and significance of all these three things, we need not wonder that John should have been inspired to write this verse, in which he emphatically tells his readers that he is writing down nothing but the plain naked truth, and that he actually saw these three things,— the unbroken legs, the pierced side, the flow of blood and water,— with his own eyes. Pearce and Alford think that the expression "that ye might believe," signifies that ye might believe that Jesus did really die on the cross. Others decidedly prefer thinking that it means, "that ye may believe that blood and water did really flow from the side of Jesus after His death." Others take the phrase in a general sense, "that ye may believe more firmly than ever on Christ, as the true sacrifice for sin." v36, v37.—[For these things were done, etc.] In these two verses John explains distinctly to his readers why two of the facts he has just mentioned, however trifling they might seem to an ignorant person, were in reality of great importance. By one of these facts,— the not breaking a bone of our Lord's body,— the text was fulfilled which said that not a bone of the passover-lamb should be broken. (Exodus 12:46.) By the other fact,— the piercing of our Lord's side,— the prophecy of Zechariah was fulfilled, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem "should look on Him whom they pierced." (Zechariah 12:10.) Alford observes that the expression, "they shall look," does not refer to the Roman soldiers, but to the repentant in the world, who at the time this Gospel was written had began to fulfil this prophecy; and that it also contains a prophetic reference to the future conversion of Israel, who were here the real piercers, though the act was done by the hand of others." It is almost needless to say that the passage, like many others, does not mean that these things were done in order that Scripture might be fulfilled, but that by these things being done the Scripture was fulfilled, and God's perfect foreknowledge about the least details of Christ's death was proved. Nothing in the great sacrifice happened by chance, luck, or accident. All was arranged as appointed, from first to last, many centuries before, by the determinate counsel of God. Caiaphas, Pilate, the Roman soldiers, were all unconscious instruments in carrying into effect what God had long predicted and foretold to the least jot and tittle. Let us carefully note here what strong evidence these verses supply in favour of a literal, and not a merely spiritual, fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies. Rollock observes, "If God have ordained and said anything, it lies not in the hands of any man to disannul it. If God shall say, "There shall not be one bone of my anointed broken," great Cæsar and all the kings of the earth, the King of Spain, and the Pope, and all their adherents, shall not be able to do the contrary. So, in the midst of all fear and danger, let us depend on the providence of God." There is a peculiar interest attached to these five verses of Scripture. They introduce us to a stranger, of whom we never heard before. They bring in an old friend, whose name is known wherever the Bible is read. They describe the most important funeral that ever took place in this world. From each of these three points of interest we may learn a very profitable lesson. We learn, for one thing, from these verses, that there are some true Christians in the world of whom very little is known. The case of Joseph of Arimathζa teaches this very plainly. Here is a man named among the friends of Christ, whose very name we never find elsewhere in the New Testament, and whose history, both before and after this crisis, is completely withheld from the Church. He comes forward to do honor to Christ, when the Apostles had forsaken Him and fled. He cares for Him and delights to do Him service, even when dead,— not because of any miracle which he saw Him do, but out of free and gratuitous love. He does not hesitate to confess himself one of Christ's friends, at a time when Jews and Romans alike had condemned Him as a malefactor, and put Him to death. Surely the man who could do such things must have had strong faith! Can we wonder that, wherever the Gospel is preached, throughout the whole world, this pious action of Joseph is told of as a memorial of him? Let us hope and believe that there are many Christians in every age, who, like Joseph, are the Lord's hidden servants, unknown to the Church and the world, but well known to God. Even in Elijah's time there were seven thousand in Israel who had never bowed the knee to Baal, although the desponding prophet knew nothing of it. Perhaps, at this very day, there are saints in the back streets of some of our great towns, or in the lanes of some of our country parishes, who make no noise in the world, and yet love Christ and are loved by Him. Ill-health, or poverty, or the daily cares of some laborious calling, render it impossible for them to come forward in public; and so they live and die comparatively unknown. Yet the last day may show an astonished world that some of these very people, like Joseph, honored Christ as much as any on earth, and that their names were written in heaven. After all, it is special circumstances that bring to the surface special Christians. It is not them that make the greatest show in the Church, who are always found the fastest friends of Christ. We learn, for another thing, from these verses, that there are some servants of Christ whose latter end is better than their beginning. The case of Nicodemus teaches that lesson very plainly. The only man who dared to help Joseph in his holy work of burying our Lord, was one who at first "came to Jesus by night," and was nothing better than an ignorant inquirer after truth. At a later period in our Lord's ministry we find this same Nicodemus coming forward with somewhat more boldness, and raising in the Council of the Pharisees the question, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" (John 7:57.) Finally, we see him in the passage before us, ministering to our Lord's dead body, and not ashamed to take an active part in giving to the despised Nazarene an honorable burial. How great the contrast between the man who timidly crept into the Lord's lodging to ask a question, and the man who brought a hundred pounds weight of myrrh and aloes to anoint His dead body! Yet it was the same Nicodemus. How great may be a man's growth in grace, and faith, and knowledge, and courage, in the short space of three years. We shall do well to store up these things in our minds, and to remember the case of Nicodemus, in forming our estimate of other people's religion. We must not condemn others as graceless and godless, because they do not see the whole truth at once, and only reach decided Christianity by slow degrees. The Holy Ghost always leads believers to the same foundation truths, and into the same highway to heaven. In these there is invariable uniformity. But the Holy Ghost does not always lead believers through the same experience, or at the same rate of speed. In this there is much diversity in His operations. He that says conversion is a needless thing, and that an unconverted man may be saved, is undoubtedly under a strange delusion. But he that says that no one is converted except he becomes a full-blown and established Christian in a single day, is no less under a delusion. Let us not judge others rashly and hastily. Let us believe that a man's beginnings in religion may be very small, and yet his latter end may greatly increase. Has a man real grace? Has he within him the genuine work of the Spirit? This is the grand question. If he has, we may safely hope that his grace will grow, and we should deal with him gently, and bear with him charitably, though at present he may be a mere babe in spiritual attainments. The life in a helpless infant is as real and true a thing as the life in a full-grown man: the difference is only one of degree. "Who hath despised the day of small things?" (Zechariah 4:10.) The very Christian who begins his religion with a timid night-visit, and an ignorant inquiry, may stand forward alone one day, and confess Christ boldly in the full light of the sun. We learn, lastly, from these verses, that the burial of the dead is an act which God sanctions and approves. We need not doubt that this is part of the lesson which the passage before us was meant to convey to our minds. Of course, it supplies unanswerable evidence that our Lord really died, and afterwards really rose again; but it also teaches that, when the body of a Christian is dead, there is fitness in burying it with decent honor. It is not for nothing that the burials of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Joseph, and Moses are carefully recorded in holy writ. It is not for nothing that we are told that John the Baptist was laid in a tomb; and that "devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him." (Acts 8:2.) It is not for nothing that we are told so particularly about the burial of Christ. The true Christian need never be ashamed of regarding a funeral with peculiar reverence and solemnity. It is the body, which may be the instrument of committing the greatest sins, or of bringing the greatest glory to God. It is the body, which the eternal Son of God honored by dwelling in it for thirty and three years, and finally dying in our stead. It is the body, with which He rose again and ascended up into heaven. It is the body, in which He sits at the right hand of God, and represents us before the Father, as our Advocate and Priest. It is the body, which is now the temple of the Holy Ghost, while the believer lives. It is the body, which will rise again, when the last trumpet sounds, and, reunited to the soul, will live in heaven to all eternity. Surely, in the face of such facts as these, we never need suppose that reverence bestowed on the burial of the body is reverence thrown away. Let us leave the subject with one word of caution. Let us take care that we do not regard a sumptuous funeral as an atonement for a life wasted in carelessness and sin. We may bury a man in the most expensive style, and spend hundreds of pounds in mourning. We may place over his grave a costly marble stone, and inscribe on it a flattering epitaph. But all this will not save our souls or his. The turning point at the last day will not be how we are buried, but whether we were "buried with Christ," and repented and believed. (Romans 6:4.) Better a thousand times to die the death of the righteous, have a lowly grave and a pauper's funeral, than to die graceless, and lie under a marble tomb! ================== Notes— v38.—[And after this Joseph of Arimathζa.] This verse begins John's account of our Lord's burial. The manner of that burial was one of the things predicted by Isaiah (Isaiah 53:9), in a verse which is not correctly translated. It should be, "His grave was appointed with the wicked: but with the rich man was His tomb." The details of His burial are carefully recorded by all the four Evangelists. Each of them names Joseph as the prime agent in the transaction, and, singularly enough, each mentions something that the other three Gospel-writers do not mention. Matthew alone says that he was "a rich man." (Matthew 27:51.) Mark alone says that he was "an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God." (Mark 15:43.) Luke alone says that he was "a good man and a just," who had "not consented to the counsel and deed of them, . . . who himself waited for the kingdom of God." (Luke 23:50-51.) John alone says here, that he was "a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews." It is another singular fact about Joseph, that we never hear a word about him in Scripture, except on this occasion of our Lord's burial. Both before and after this interesting event, the Bible, for some wise reason, is entirely silent about him. Nor can we explain how an inhabitant of Arimathζa happened to have a new tomb at Jerusalem. We must either suppose that, as a rich man, he had two residences, or else that, though born at Arimathζa, he had lately removed to Jerusalem. The utmost we know is that the article in the Greek before "Joseph," and before "of Arimathζa," seems to indicate that he was a person well known by history to the readers of John's Gospel. About the place whence Joseph came, "Arimathζa," nothing certain is known. Some think that it is Ramah, where Samuel dwelt. (1 Samuel 7:17.) The Septuagint Greek translator certainly calls Ramah "Armathaim," which looks like it. Luke calls it a "city of Judζa." Nothing certain seems to be known about it. [Being a disciple...secretly...Jews.] The Greek word rendered "secretly," is literally "a concealed" disciple,— a past participle. The expression teaches the interesting fact that there were Jews who secretly believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and yet had not courage to confess Him before His crucifixion. We are distinctly told in John 12:42, that "many of the chief rulers believed, but did not confess Christ, because of the Pharisees." But the character given of them, that "they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God," is so condemnatory, that we may well doubt whether Joseph was one of these. Want of physical or moral courage was probably the flaw in his character. It is only fair to remember that, as "a rich man and a counsellor," he had far more to sacrifice, and far more opposition to encounter, than poor fishermen or publicans would have. His backwardness to confess Christ cannot of course be defended. But his case teaches us that there is sometimes more spiritual work going on in men's minds than appears. We must not set down every one as utterly graceless and godless, who is not bold and outspoken at present. We must charitably hope that there are some secret disciples, who at present hold their tongues and say nothing, and yet, like Joseph, will one day come forward, and be courageous witnesses for Christ. All is not gold that glitters, and all is not dross that now looks dirty and makes no show. We must be charitable and hope on.— His case should also teach us the great power of that mischievous principle, the fear of man. Open sin kills its thousands, but the fear of man its tens of thousands. Let us watch and pray against it. Faith is the grand secret of victory over it. Like Moses, we must ever live as those who "see Him that is invisible." (Hebrews 11:27.) And to faith must be added the expulsive power of a new principle,— the fear of God. "I fear God," said holy Col. Gardiner, "and there is none else that I need fear." [Besought Pilate...take...body...Jesus.] The conduct of Joseph deserves our praise and admiration, and his name will be held in honour by the Church of Christ, in consequence of it, as long as the world stands. Whatever Joseph was at first, he shone brightly at last. "The last are first" sometimes. Let us see what he did. (a) Joseph honoured Christ, when our Lord's own apostles had forsaken Him. He showed more faith and courage than His nearest and dearest friends. (b) Joseph honoured Christ, when it was a dangerous thing to do Him honour. To come forward and avow respect for one condemned as a malefactor, for one cast out by the High Priests and leaders of the Jews,— to say practically, "I am Christ's friend," was bold indeed. Mark particularly says, "He went in boldly unto Pilate" (Mark 15:43), showing plainly that it was an act of uncommon courage. (c) Joseph honoured Christ, when He was a lifeless corpse, and to all appearance could do nothing for him. It was not when Jesus was doing miracles and preaching wonderful sermons, but when there remained nothing of Him but a dead body, that he came forward and asked leave to bury Him. Why Joseph's "fear" departed, and he acted with such marvellous boldness now, is a question which we have no means of settling. But reason points out that in all probability he had been an eye-witness of much that had happened this eventful day. He had possibly stood within a short distance of the cross, and seen all that took place, and heard every one of our Lord's seven sayings. The miraculous darkness for three hours, and the earthquake, must have arrested his attention. Surely it is not presumptuous to conjecture, that all this must have had a mighty effect on Joseph's soul, and made him resolve at once to cast fear away, and avow himself openly one of Christ's friends. It is almost certain that he must have been near the cross at three o'clock, when our Lord gave up the ghost, or else how could he have known of His death, and had time to think of burying Him? After all it is a deep truth, that circumstances bring out character in an extraordinary way. Just as the developing liquid brings out of the dull grey glass in the photographer's hands, a latent image which you never suspected before, so do circumstances bring out in some men a decision and power of character, which before you would have thought impossible. Rollock remarks, "When Christ was working wonders, and speaking as never man spake, all this moved not Joseph to come forth and show himself. But now, Christ being dead and in shame, he comes out. Whereunto do I ascribe this? I ascribe it to the force that comes from the death of Christ. There was never a living man in the world that had such power as that dead body had. More mighty was His death than His life." [And Pilate gave him leave.] The entire absence of difficulties in Joseph's way is, at first sight, rather remarkable. We may easily believe that Pilate was willing enough to grant Joseph's request. He did not grant it till the centurion certified that Jesus was actually dead, and the ends of justice (so called) attained. Then at once he gave permission. It is fair to remember that he had regarded our Lord as guiltless all along, that if left to his own free will he would have released Him. It is probable, moreover, that he was vexed and annoyed at the obstinate pertinacity with which the Jews pressed for our Lord's death against his wish, and that he would be glad enough to pay them off, and spite them, by gratifying any friend of our Lord. But we must also remember that to the burial of our Lord's body the Jews themselves had no objection, and had even asked that the death of the criminals might be hastened and the dead bodies got out of the way. What they would have done with the body of our Lord, if Joseph had not come forward, we cannot certainly tell. Lightfoot says there was a common grave for the bodies of malefactors. In any case Joseph's request was not likely to meet with objection either from Gentile or Jew. But, for all that, we must not forget that it made him a marked man, as a friend of Christ, and utterly ruined his character with Caiaphas and the high priests. [He came therefore...took...body...Jesus.] The word rendered "took" here, is the same that is rendered "took away" just above.— Some think, as Tholuck and Ellicott, that the Roman soldiers took the body down from the cross. But I see no certain proof of this, and I think it unlikely they would take the trouble to do it, if others were willing to undertake the task. The meaning, in my opinion, is that Joseph came up to the cross, raised and lifted from it the lifeless corpse of our Lord and took it away for burial. Whether this was done by rearing a ladder against the cross, as Rubens' famous picture represents, and so letting down the body after drawing out the nails; or whether by taking up the cross out of the hole in which it was fixed, laying it on the ground, and then taking out the nails, is a question which we have no means of deciding. To me it seems far more probable that the latter plan would be adopted than the former, and that as the cross was most likely reared up with the body on it, so it was taken down again with the body on it. But every reader must judge for himself. In whatever way the body was taken down, or taken off the cross, everything seems to me to indicate that Joseph was the person who did it with his own hands. This is the more remarkable, when we consider that to touch a dead body made a Jew ceremonially unclean, and that this was the afternoon preceding the passover Sabbath. There seems, however, no reason why we should suppose that no one helped Joseph. He could hardly lift the cross, or reverently lift off the body of a full-grown person in the prime of life, without some aid. Why should we hesitate to believe that John and Nicodemus helped him? It is a curious coincidence, though perhaps only a coincidence, that it was a "Joseph," who probably first touched and received our Lord's body when He was born into the world at Bethlehem, and again a "Joseph," who was the last to hold, and lift, and handle the dead body of the same Lord, when He was buried. v39.—[And there came also Nicodemus...night.] The fact here recorded is quite peculiar to John's Gospel. For wise reasons, neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke, ever mention the name of Nicodemus. John mentions him three times,— first as a secret inquirer (John 3:1-2); secondly, as a timid advocate of justice towards our Lord in the Jewish Council (John 7:50-51); and lastly, in this place. Both here and on the second occasion, he emphatically inserts the explanatory comment, that it was the same Nicodemus which "at first came to Jesus by night." The verse before us seems to show that Nicodemus came forward as a volunteer, and helped to bury our Lord, and did not shrink to take part with Joseph in his good work. I can hardly think that he went with Joseph to Pilate. There is not a word to show this in any of the four Gospels. Some think that by agreement Nicodemus went to fetch the hundred pounds' weight of spice (no slight burden to carry), while Joseph went to Pilate. I should rather conjecture, that when Nicodemus saw Joseph coming boldly forward and showing anxiety to honour our Lord's body,— Joseph, whom doubtless as a Pharisee and counsellor, he knew well,— his own heart was stirred within him, his own timidity fell to the ground, and he came forward and offered to aid. In so doing he deserves praise and honour, though in a lower degree, like Joseph. He showed more reverence and love to our Lord when dead, than he had ever done when alive. Once more we see that circumstances bring out character in very unexpected ways. The man that began seeking Jesus by night, at last confesses Jesus openly before the world, in the full light of day. The case of Nicodemus is deeply instructive. It shows us how small and weak the beginning of true religion may be in the soul of man. It shows us that we must not despair of any one because he begins with a little timid, secret inquiry after Christ. It shows us that there are wide differences and varieties in the characters of believers. Some are brought into full light at once, and take up the cross without delay. Others attain light very slowly, and halt long between two opinions. It shows us that those who make the least display at first, sometimes shine brightest and come out best at last. Nicodemus confessed his love to Christ when Peter, James, and Andrew, had all run away. What need we have for patience and charity in forming an estimate of other people's religion! There are more successors of Nicodemus in the Church of Christ than we are aware of. We may see some marvellous changes in some persons, if we live with them a few years. The strongest, hardiest trees, are often the slowest in growth. He that sets down men and women as graceless and godless, if they do not profess full assurance of hope the first day they take up religion and hear the Gospel, forgets the case of Nicodemus, and exhibits his own ignorance of the ways of the Spirit. All God's elect are led to Christ, undoubtedly, but not all at the same speed, or through the same experience. Calvin remarks on the conduct of Joseph and Nicodemus, "Here we have a striking proof that Christ's death was more quickening than His life. So great was the efficacy of that sweet savour which the death of Christ conveyed to the minds of these two men, that it quickly extinguished all the passions of the flesh." Quesnel observes, "Wonderful is the power of Christ's death, which gives courage to confess Him in His deepest humiliation, to those who, when He was doing miracles, came to Him only in secret." Henry observes that Joseph and Nicodemus showed weak faith, but strong love. "A firm faith in Christ's resurrection would have saved them this cost and expense." But they showed their deep love to our Lord's person and teaching. [And brought...myrrh..aloes...weight.] The mixture here mentioned was probably in the shape of powder. The two ingredients were strongly aromatic and antiseptic. The large quantity brought shows the wealth and the liberal mind of Nicodemus. It also shows his wise forethought. A dead body so torn and lacerated as that of our blessed Lord, would need an unusually large quantity of antiseptics or preservatives, to check the tendency to corruption which such a climate would cause, even at Easter. Considering also that everything must have been done with some haste, the large quantity of spices used was probably meant to compensate for the want of time to do the work slowly and carefully. v40.—[Then took...body...wound...clothes...spices.] Here we are told the precise manner of the preparation of our Lord's body for burial. As always in that time and country, He was not put into a coffin. He was simply wrapped up in linen cloths, on which the preparation of myrrh and aloes had been laid. Thus the powder would be next to our Lord's body, and interpose between the linen and His skin. How the linen clothes were provided, we are told by Mark. Joseph "bought fine linen." (Mark 15:46.) Joseph, being a rich man, had no difficulty in supplying funds for this purpose. The word "wound" means literally "bound." The sentence before us supplies one more strong evidence of the reality of Christ's death. Joseph and Nicodemus could not possibly be deceived. When they touched and handled the body, and wrapped it in linen clothes, they must have felt convinced that the heart had ceased to beat, and that life was extinct. There is no mistaking the feel of a dead body. [As the manner...Jews...bury.] This is one of those occasional comments or explanatory remarks, which John sometimes makes in his Gospel, supplying strong internal evidence that he wrote for all the Church of Christ in every land, Gentiles as well as Jews, and that he thought it wise to explain Jewish customs. The reference appears to be to the wrapping of the body in linen, rather than to the use of the spices. Lazarus at Bethany came out of the grave wrapped around with cloths. The wise foresight of the Spirit of God appears strongly in the details here given of our Lord's burial. The quantity of spices used was so great, that it anticipates the objection that our Lord's body might possibly "see corruption" in some degree before His resurrection. At the same time, the special mention of Joseph being "a rich man," and Nicodemus "a ruler" helping him, completely stops the mouths of those who would have said that the followers of our Lord could never have found means to prevent the wounds of His body corrupting. By God's superintending providence, inclining rich men to come forward, the difficulty was obviated, and the means provided. Besser says, "Twice was Jesus Christ rich in the days of His poverty. Once, immediately after His birth, when the wise men from the East offered Him gold, and frankincense, and myrrh; and now, after His ignominious death, when a rich man buries him, and a distinguished man provides spices to anoint Him. Yea, a rich Joseph has taken the place of that poor Joseph who stood by the manger." v41.—[Now in the place...crucified...garden.] This verse tells us the place where our Lord was buried. It was in "a garden" close to the spot called Golgotha, where He was crucified. This fact alone seems to dispose of the theory, that the "place of a skull" meant a place where the skeletons and bones of executed criminals were lying about! Reason and common-sense point out, that, even if there were no argument against the theory from the Jewish customs about bones, it is very unlikely that "a garden" would have been near such a loathsome place. Golgotha could hardly be a place of execution, or a place where criminals were frequently crucified, if there was a garden near! The pictures that commonly represent the scene of the crucifixion as a bleak desolate-looking rocky hill. are manifestly quite incorrect. It was a place near to which, or where "there was a garden." The curious coincidence that the fall of the first Adam, the agony, the cross, and the sepulchre of the second Adam, were all alike connected with a garden, can hardly fail to strike a reflecting mind. [And in the garden...new sepulchre...laid.] Here we have the very receptacle described in which our Lord's sacred body was laid. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all tell us it was "hewn out of a rock,"— the limestone rock, which is the rock of the place. John tells us that it was "new;" and, like Luke, adds that "never man was laid in" it before. It is curious that Matthew alone tells us that this tomb was Joseph's own, "which he had hewn out of a rock." (Matthew 27:60.) Theophylact remarks, that it is a striking proof of our Lord's poverty, that while He lived He had no house of His own, and when He died He was buried in another's tomb. It is almost needless to say that both the conditions of the sepulchre above mentioned are of great importance, and deserve careful notice. (a) Our Lord's tomb was hewn out of a hard limestone rock. This made it clearly impossible for any one to say, that the disciples made a subterraneous entrance into the tomb by night, and stole the body away. By the entrance that it was carried into the sepulchre, by the same it must be carried out.— (b) Our Lord's tomb was a new one, in which no one had ever been laid. This made it impossible for any one to say, after the resurrection, that there was no proof that Jesus rose from the dead, and that it might possibly be some one else. This could not be, when His body was the first and only body that was ever laid in this grave. Wonderful is it to see how at every turn the overruling wisdom of God has stopped, obviated, and frustrated, by wise provisions, the objections of infidels. v42.—[Then laid they Jesus, etc.] In order to see the full meaning of this verse, we should slightly invert the order of the words, and paraphrase them in some such way as this:— "In this new rock-hewn tomb, therefore, Joseph and Nicodemus laid the body of Jesus, because it was conveniently nigh at hand, and because the Jews' preparation day, or day preceding the passover sabbath, left them little time, and made it necessary to hasten their proceedings."— We may well believe that these two holy men had but little time, when we consider that our Lord did not give up the ghost till three o'clock, that the day ended at six, and that only three hours were left for Joseph to go to Pilate and get leave to remove the body from the cross, for Joseph and Nicodemus to take the nails out and lift the body from the tree, for wrapping the body in linen with a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes, and for finally carrying it to the tomb and rolling a huge stone to the mouth of the tomb.— When we remember, beside this, that the body of a full-grown man, wrapped in linen with a hundred pounds of additional weight in myrrh and aloes, would be a most awkward and difficult burden for two men to carry, we may well believe that nothing but severe exertion could have enabled Joseph and Nicodemus to finish their labour of love before six o'clock. The wonder is that they managed to do it at all. It certainly could not have been done if they had not got a sepulchre nigh at hand. Again the Holy Ghost appears to me to foresee the objection that there was not time to bury our Lord, and mercifully supplies the words which answer it: "the sepulchre was nigh at hand." Even then we can hardly doubt that John and the women from Galilee must have lent some help. At all events it is distinctly recorded that the women were present, and that they were sitting by and beheld were the body was laid. Thus ended the most wonderful funeral the sun ever shone upon. Such a death and such a burial,— so little understood by man and so important in the sight of God,— there never was, and never can be again. Who need doubt the love of Christ, when we consider the deep humiliation that Christ went through for our sakes! To tabernacle in our flesh at all, to die after the manner of a man, to allow His holy body to hang naked on a cross, to suffer it to be lifted, handled, carried like a lump of cold clay, and shut up in a dark, silent, solitary tomb,— this was indeed love that passeth knowledge. What true believer need fear the grave now? Solemn as is the thought of our last narrow bed, we must never forget that "it is the place where the Lord lay." (Matthew 28:6.) "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:56.) Henry observes, "Christ's death should comfort us against the fear of death. The grave could not long keep Christ, and it shall not long keep us. It was a loathsome prison before, it is a perfumed bed now. He whose Head is in heaven, need not fear to put his feet into the grave." Every Bible reader knows that Isaiah's famous prophecy contains the words, "He made His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death." (Isaiah 53:9.) But not every one knows the interesting fact that the more correct translation of the Hebrew words would be, "His grave was appointed to be with the wicked; but with the rich man was His tomb." This is the opinion of such eminent scholars as Capellus, Vitringa, Bishop Lowth, and Bishop Horsley. The chapter we have now begun takes us from Christ's death to Christ's resurrection. Like Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John dwells on these two great events with peculiar fullness and particularity. And we need not wonder. The whole of saving Christianity hinges on the two facts, that Christ died for our sins, and rose again for our justification. The chapter before our eyes deserves special attention. Of all the four evangelists, none supplies such deeply interesting evidence of the resurrection, as the disciple whom Jesus loved. We are taught in the passage before us, that those who love Christ most are those who have received most benefit from him. The first whom John names among those who came to Christ's sepulcher, is Mary Magdalene. The history of this faithful woman, no doubt, is hidden in much obscurity. A vast amount of obloquy has been heaped upon her memory, as if she was once an habitual sinner against the seventh commandment. Yet there is literally no evidence whatever that she was anything of the kind! But we are distinctly told that she was one out of whom the Lord had cast "seven devils" (Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2),— one who had been subjected in a peculiar way to Satan's possession,— and one whose gratitude to our Lord for deliverance was a gratitude that knew no bounds. In short, of all our Lord's followers on earth, none seem to have loved Him so much as Mary Magdalene. None felt that they owed so much to Christ. None felt so strongly that there was nothing too great to do for Christ. Hence, as Bishop Andrews beautifully puts it,— "She was last at His cross, and first at His grave. She stayed longest there, and was soonest here. She could not rest till she was up to seek Him. She sought Him while it was yet dark, even before she had light to seek Him by." In a word, having received much, she loved much; and loving much, she did much, in order to prove the reality of her love. The case before us throws broad and clear light on a question, which ought to be deeply interesting to every true-hearted servant of Christ. How is it that many who profess and call themselves Christians, do so little for the Savior whose name they bear? How is it that many, whose faith and grace it would be uncharitable to deny, work so little, give so little, say so little, take so little pains, to promote Christ's cause, and bring glory to Christ in the world? These questions admit of only one answer. It is a low sense of debt and obligation to Christ, which is the account of the whole matter. Where sin is not felt at all, nothing is done; and where sin is little felt, little is done. The man who is deeply conscious of his own guilt and corruption, and deeply convinced that without the blood and intercession of Christ he would sink deservedly into the lowest hell, this is the man who will spend and be spent for Jesus, and think that he can never do enough to show forth His praise. Let us daily pray that we may see the sinfulness of sin, and the amazing grace of Christ, more clearly and distinctly. Then, and then only, shall we cease to be cool, and lukewarm, and slovenly in our work for Jesus. Then, and then only, shall we understand such burning zeal as that of Mary; and comprehend what Paul meant when he said, "The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge that if One died for all, then were all dead: and that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again." (2 Corinthians 5:14-15.) We are taught, secondly, in these verses, that there are widely different temperaments in different believers. This is a point which is curiously brought out in the conduct of Peter and John, when Mary Magdalene told them that the Lord's body was gone. We are told that they both ran to the sepulcher; but John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, outran Peter, and reached the empty grave first. Then comes out the difference between the two men. John, of the two more gentle, quiet, tender, reserved, retiring, deep-feeling, stooped down and looked in, but went no further. Peter, more hot, and zealous, and impulsive, and fervent, and forward, cannot be content without going down into the sepulcher, and actually seeing with his own eyes. Both, we may be sure, were deeply attached to our Lord. The hearts of both, at this critical juncture, were full of hopes, and fears, and anxieties, and expectations, all tangled together. Yet each behaves in his own characteristic fashion. We need not doubt that these things were intentionally written for our learning. Let us learn, from the case before us, to make allowances for wide varieties in the inward character of believers. To do so will save us much trouble in the journey of life, and prevent many an uncharitable thought. Let us not judge brethren harshly, and set them down in a low place, because they do not see or feel things exactly as we see and feel, and because things do not affect or strike them just as they affect and strike us. The flowers in the Lord's garden are not all of one color and one scent, though they are all planted by one Spirit. The subjects of His kingdom are not all exactly of one tone and temperament, though they all love the same Savior, and are written in the same book of life. The Church of Christ has some in its ranks who are like Peter, and some who are like John; and a place for all, and a work for all to do. Let us love all who love Christ in sincerity, and thank God that they love Him at all. The great thing is to love Jesus. We are taught, finally, in these verses, that there may be much ignorance even in true believers. This is a point which is brought out here with singular force and distinctness. John himself, the writer of this Gospel, records of himself and his companion Peter, "As yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead." How truly wonderful this seems! For three long years these two leading Apostles had heard our Lord speak of His own resurrection as a fact, and yet they had not understood Him. Again and again He had staked the truth of His Messiahship on His rising from the dead, and yet they had never taken in His meaning. We little realize the power over the mind which is exercised by wrong teaching in childhood, and by early prejudices imbibed in our youth. Surely the Christian minister has little right to complain of ignorance among his hearers, when he marks the ignorance of Peter and John, under the teaching of Christ Himself. After all we must remember that true grace, and not head knowledge, is the one thing needful. We are in the hands of a merciful and compassionate Savior, who passes by and pardons much ignorance, when He sees "a heart right in the sight of God." Some things indeed we must know, and without knowing them we cannot be saved. Our own sinfulness and guilt, the office of Christ as a Savior, the necessity of repentance and faith,— such things as these are essential to salvation. But he that knows these things may, in other respects, be a very ignorant man. In fact, the extent to which one man may have grace together with much ignorance, and another may have much knowledge and yet no grace, is one of the greatest mysteries in religion, and one which the last day alone will unfold. Let us then seek knowledge, and be ashamed of ignorance. But above all let us make sure that, like Peter and John, we have grace and right hearts. ================== Notes— The two last chapters of John's Gospel are taken up with accounts of our Lord's appearances after His resurrection. Like Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John dwells very fully on the history of the crucifixion and resurrection. But, as in other parts of his Gospel, so here also, he supplies many deeply interesting details, which the other Evangelists, for some wise reasons, have not recorded. A few preliminary remarks on the whole subject will not perhaps be found uninteresting. The matter is one about which every Christian ought to have very clear and correct views. (a) Concerning the importance of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead, it would be hard to speak too strongly. It is a cardinal article of the Christian faith, second to none in value.— It is the grand proof that He was the promised Messiah whom the Prophets had foretold. It is the one great sign which He named to the Jews when asked to give convincing evidence of His Divine mission,— the sign of the Prophet Jonas, the rebuilding of the temple after destruction. (Matthew 12:39; John 2:19-21.) If He did not rise again after three days, they were not to believe Him.— It is the completion of the work of redemption which He came into the world to accomplish. It proved that the ransom was accepted, and the victory over sin and death obtained. Christ "was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification."— "We are begotten again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."— (Romans 4:25; 1 Peter 1:3.) If He had not risen again, our hope would have been a huge uncertainty.— It is a fact which has the closest connection with the spiritual life, and position before God, of all believers. They are counted by God as "risen with Christ," and they should regard themselves as partakers of Christ's resurrection life, and sitting in heavenly places.— Not least, it is the pledge and assurance of our own resurrection at the last day. We need not fear death, and look at the grave with despair, when we remember that Jesus Christ rose again in the body. As surely as the Head rose, so shall the members be raised.— Let these points never be forgotten. When we think of them we may understand why the Apostles, in their preaching and Epistles, dwell so much upon the resurrection. Well would it be if modern Christians thought more about it. Myriads seem unable to look at anything in the Gospel except the sacrifice and death of Christ, and altogether pass over His resurrection. (b) Concerning the evidences of Christ's resurrection,— the proofs that He actually did rise again from the grave with His body,— it is most remarkable to observe how full and various they are. He was seen at least eleven times after He rose again, at different times of day, in different ways, and by different witnesses. He was seen first by one woman alone, then by several women together, then by one man, then by two men, and each time in the open air. Then He was seen by ten disciples in the evening in a room, then by eleven disciples again in a room, and afterwards on five different occasions, at one of which no less than five hundred people were present. Those to whom He appeared, touched Him, talked with Him, and saw Him eat and drink. (Matthew 28:9; John 20:27; Luke 24:42.) Nor must it be forgotten that all who saw Him were most unwilling at first to believe, and most slow to credit the report of His resurrection. Yet they were all finally convinced! If there is any fact in Christianity that is well supported by evidence, it is the fact of Christ rising again from the dead. It is the one fact that no infidel has ever fairly grappled with. One thing at any rate is most undeniably certain, and no infidel can escape it. The Apostles a few weeks after our Lord's crucifixion, were utterly and entirely different men in every way from what they were before the crucifixion,— bolder, more decided, more unhesitating followers of Jesus of Nazareth, than they used to be, to a most enormous extent. Even such men as the German Rationalists, Paulus and Strauss, according to Tholuck, are obliged to make the curious admission,— "Something extraordinary must have occurred." (c) Concerning the best mode of harmonizing the accounts which the four Evangelists give of our Lord's appearances, after He rose again from the dead, there is undeniably some difficulty. But it is probably far more apparent than real. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, each tell their own story. There is a most decided absence of any appearance of concert or collusion about them. How to reconcile the seeming discrepancies in their narratives, has exercised the skill of commentators in every age. Dean Alford says flatly, that he "attempts no harmony of the accounts, and that he believes all such attempts to be fruitless." I do not agree with him at all, and I think the statement to be unworthy of the able writer who makes it. I think the accounts can be harmonized and reconciled, and that too without any unfair violence to the narratives of the four Gospels. The order of Christ's eleven appearances between His resurrection and ascension, I believe to be as follows: (1) to Mary Magdalene alone (Mark 16:9; John 20:14); (2) to certain women returning from the sepulchre (Matthew 28:9-10); (3) to Simon Peter alone (Luke 24:34); (4) to two disciples going to Emmaus (Luke 24:13); (5) to ten Apostles at Jerusalem, and some other disciples, Thomas being absent (John 20:19); (6) to eleven Apostles at Jerusalem, Thomas being present (John 20:26-29); (7) to seven disciples fishing at the sea of Tiberias (John 21:1); (8) to eleven Apostles on a mountain in Galilee, and perhaps some others with them (Matthew 28:16); (9) to above five hundred brethren at once (1 Corinthians 15:6); (10) to James only (1 Corinthians 15:7); (11) to all the Apostles, and probably some others, on Mount Olivet, at His ascension. Most of these eleven appearances require little or no explanation. The ninth and tenth in the list are only recorded by Paul; and some think that the appearance to five hundred at once, is the same as that to the eleven in Galilee, though I doubt it. The appearance to Peter is one of which we know nothing except the fact; and, in my judgment, it certainly is not the same as the appearance to the two who were walking to Emmaus. The only appearances, after all, about which there is any difficulty, are the two first in the list, and to my own mind the difficulty is by no means insuperable. The knot to be untied is this. Mark expressly says that our Lord appeared first to Mary Magdalene. (Mark 16:9.) John also describes this appearance; and it is quite plain from his account that Mary Magdalene was alone. (John 20:11-13.) Yet Matthew says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the sepulchre together,— saw an angel, and heard that our Lord had risen,— ran to bring the tidings to the disciples, and were met on the way by Jesus, and both saw Him at the same time. Now how is this to be explained? How can the account of these three witnesses be made to harmonize and agree? I will try to show. (1) I believe that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary did not go alone to the sepulchre, on the morning of the resurrection. By comparing Mark 16:1, and Luke 23:55, and Luke 24:1, with Matthew 28:1, it is quite evident that several "other women" accompanied them. (2) I believe that, on drawing nigh the sepulchre, the company of women saw the stone rolled away from its mouth. At once, on seeing this, it flashed on the mind of Mary Magdalene that the body of Jesus had been removed from the tomb, and, without waiting a moment, she ran off to Peter and John, and told them, as recorded in John 20:1-2. This is the view of Chrysostom and Cyril. (3) I believe that, while Mary Magdalene ran off to tell Peter and John, the other women went up to the sepulchre, found the body gone, saw a vision of angels, were told that Jesus had risen, and were commanded to go and tell the disciples. They departed to tell the news. Some went in one direction and some in another; Mary and Salome with one party; Joanna with another. (4) I believe that while this was going on, Mary Magdalene, who had run off alone to tell Peter and John, had found them, and that they all three came to the sepulchre shortly after the other women went away. Whether Mary got there so soon as Peter and John, perhaps admits of doubt. (5) I believe that Peter and John saw the empty sepulchre, and went away, leaving Mary Magdalene weeping there. (6) I believe that, as soon as Peter and John went away, Mary Magdalene saw the two angels, and immediately after saw our Lord Himself, and was told to carry a message to His brethren. (John 20:17.) (7) I believe that in the mean time the other women had gone in two or three directions, to tell the other disciples who lived in a different part of Jerusalem from that where Peter and John lived. Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Salome, were yet on their way when Jesus met them, very shortly after He had appeared to Mary Magdalene. (8) I believe that one party of the women, with Joanna at their head, saw nothing of our Lord, but went to the disciples and told them the message of the angels. (9) I believe that, shortly after this, our Lord appeared to Simon Peter, who very likely had gone again to the grave on hearing Mary Magdalene's report. (10) I believe that in the course of the same day our Lord appeared to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, who had left Jerusalem after Joanna and the women reported the vision of angels, but before our Lord had appeared to Peter. (11) Finally, I believe that in the evening of the same day our Lord appeared to the Apostles, and others with them, Thomas being absent. Luke says, "The eleven Apostles were gathered together." But he evidently means the Apostles generally, as a body. (See my note on Luke 24:34.) This was our Lord's fifth appearance on the day that He rose. I know not whether this scheme of reconciliation will satisfy all my readers. On a point so much controverted, it becomes a commentator to speak humbly and diffidently. I content myself with saying that I see far fewer difficulties in it than in any other scheme that I have met with. I see, moreover, nothing unfair or unreasonable about it, and nothing which is not consistent with the variety that may justly be expected from the testimony of four independent witnesses. To those who wish to study the subject more fully, I strongly recommend a careful study of "West on the Resurrection," and "Birks's Horæ Evangelicæ." v1.—[The first day of the week.] This, I need hardly say, means our Sunday, the Lord's day, the first day following the Jewish sabbath. Between the end of the nineteenth chapter and these words, we must suppose an interval of thirty-six hours to have passed away. During these hours our blessed Lord's body lay still in the tomb, and His soul was in paradise, while the disciples were quiet in their respective abodes, and honoured the fourth commandment. The chief and principal breakers of this Sabbath were the priests and Pharisees, who came to Pilate and obtained leave to set a watch around the tomb, and put a seal on the stone which lay at its mouth. The very men who made a boast of the law, through breaking of the law dishonoured God, and disgraced themselves. The very followers of Him whom they had slain, kept the law more strictly than they did. [Cometh Mary Magdalene...early...dark...sepulchre.] John names none but Mary. Yet it is clear, by examining the account of the other three Gospel writers, that she did not come alone. She was only one among several women from Galilee,— including Mary the wife of Cleophas, or Alpheus, Salome the mother of John and James, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward. These all appear to have been near our Lord when He was crucified, and to have looked on, if they did not actively help, when He was buried. They then probably agreed to come to the tomb early on the morning after the sabbath, in order to do more for our Lord's body than there was time to do on Friday afternoon. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment. They now came as early as they could, even before the sun was up, in order to begin their pius work as soon as they had light to do it. Foremost among the whole party was Mary Magdalene. Rupertus and Ferus maintain that Mary Magdalene lived at Bethany, and therefore came alone to the sepulchre, from a different road to that by which the other women came. But this seems pure conjecture, and probably arises from confounding Mary Magdalene with Mary the sister of Lazarus. [And seeth...stone...sepulchre.] It seems to me, from these words, that Mary Magdalene was the first who detected in the dim twilight that the stone was rolled away from the mouth of the tomb. It may be that she was in advance of the other women, and thus saw it first. It may be that strong feeling and anxiety made her more quick-sighted and keen of observation than her companions. Indeed we do not know for a certainty that all the women came together in a body. For anything I can see they may have come separately, or by twos and threes, and Mary may have been the first of the party. It is quite consistent with her character to suppose this. In any case her conduct this memorable morning was so remarkable and prominent, that John speaks of her alone. All the women showed faith and courage and love, he seems to intimate; but none so pre-eminently as Mary Magdalene. She was first to come near the tomb, first to discover that the stone [was] rolled away, first to conjecture that something remarkable had happened, and first to act at once on what she saw. Let us note Mary's courage, and zeal to honour her buried Lord. Not every woman would have dared to go outside the city while it was yet dark, to a grave, and specially during the passover feast, when thousands of strangers were probably sleeping under any slight shelter near the walls of Jerusalem. Let us note how John takes it for granted that his readers were acquainted with the other three Gospels, and knew that "a stone" had been rolled to the door of the sepulchre. He here speaks of "the stone." Yet he has said nothing about it before. There seems strong internal evidence that Mary, and the other women who agreed to come with her to the sepulchre, could not have known of the Roman guard having been placed around it. It seems, at all events, highly improbable that they would have gone there before the sun was up, if they had expected to find Roman soldiers at the place. Andrews observes that four special favours were granted to Mary in one day: (1) To see the angels; (2) To see Christ at all; (3) To see Him first of all; (4) To be employed by Christ to carry a heavenly errand. And why? Because she loved much. He adds, "We cannot say she believed much. By her thrice repeated saying her Lord was 'taken away' (John 20:2, John 20:13, John 20:15), it seems she believed no more than the high priest would have had the world believe, that He was taken away by night." v2.—[Then she runneth.] I believe this expression means that Mary Magdalene, the moment she saw the stone rolled away from its place, ran off alone to tell the news to Peter and John. She did not go a step nearer to the tomb, but left the other women to go up to the grave and look in, and thus missed seeing the angel whom they saw. She waited for nothing. The stone was moved. The body, she at once concluded, had been taken away. She turned on her heel at once, and ran off to tell the two chief Apostles. The rest of the party probably drew near to the grave slowly and hesitatingly, not knowing what to think or expect; and Mary was probably a long way on the road to the dwelling of Peter and John, before they finally turned away from the tomb. This should be carefully noticed, if we would reconcile the narratives of Matthew and John. It is clear to my own mind that there was something peculiar and striking in the conduct of Mary Magdalene this wonderful morning, and John desires on that account to direct our special attention to it. "Mary," he seems to say, "was the first to come to the tomb, the first to see that the stone was removed, and the one that ran off alone to tell me and Peter. Many of the Galilean women showed faith, and love, and zeal that morning, but none more than Mary." [And cometh...Peter...other disciple...loved.] The other disciple here mentioned was unquestionably John. Mary's reasons for running to tell these two first were probably these, (a) They were chief men among the Apostles. (b) They had been the two who had stuck most closely to Jesus up to the last, and shown most faith and love, and were naturally most anxious to know about His body, (c) Wherever John was, Mary the mother of our Lord was. Can we doubt that Mary Magdalene would think of her, as one among the first to be told about the stone being rolled away? It is moreover highly probable, though a matter of conjecture only, that Peter and John were staying at some house very near the sepulchre. It is most likely that the other Apostles were "scattered," according to our Lord's prophecy, in different parts of Jerusalem, and none were so near the tomb as Peter and John. It is interesting to notice how, all through the Gospels and Acts, Peter and John seem to have been peculiarly drawn together, and to have been close friends and companions. As fishermen, we are told that James and John were partners with Simon. (Luke 5:10.) Three times the name of James is joined with their's,— on the mount of Transfiguration, at the house of Jairus, and in the garden of Gethsemane. But the special intimacy between Peter and John comes out at the last supper, in the high priest's house, on the occasion now before us, at the Sea of Tiberias, at the end of this Gospel, and in the third of Acts, where the lame man was healed. All point to that mysterious drawing together between two men of widely different temperaments, which every observing eye must occasionally see in the world. John alone, of all the Apostles, had witnessed Peter's sad fall in the high priest's house, and observed his bitter weeping afterwards. Can we not understand that from Friday night to Sunday morning John would be lovingly employed in binding up the broken heart of his brother, and telling him of our Lord's last words? Can we doubt that they were absorbed and occupied in converse about their Master on this very morning, when Mary Magdalene suddenly ran in with her wonderful news? The love and tender charity of John's character come out beautifully in his affection for Peter, even after his denial of Christ. How many modern Churches would have excommunicated Peter, and put him in a low place for months. John clings to him, and has him under his own roof, wherever that was. When Judas fell, he had no friend to raise and cheer him. When Peter fell, there was a "brother born for adversity," who did not despise him. Bengel thinks, from the repetition of the preposition "to," in the Greek,— "to Peter, to John,"— that the disciples were not together. But I cannot think this at all likely. [And saith...taken away...know not...laid Him.] Mary's announcement was a very short one. Whether she had actually looked inside the tomb and seen that it was empty, seems more than doubtful. It would rather appear, by comparison of the four Gospels, that she had only seen the stone rolled away from the door. But that was enough for her. She had at once jumped to the conclusion that the body of "the Lord" was taken away, and so she announces it. And after all she had reason on her side. Who would have taken the trouble of rolling away the stone, but one who wanted to take away the body? If the stone was rolled away, she justly concluded the body was gone. One thing, at any rate, will be observed by every one who carefully compares John's narrative with that of the other three Evangelists. Mary Magdalene had evidently not seen "the vision of angels" which the other women saw, or else she would certainly have mentioned it to Peter and John. She does not say a word about it! She had not heard the comfortable tidings that the Lord had "risen," or else she would surely have told it. She clearly knew nothing of all this; and the conclusion is plain to my mind, that she ran off as soon as she saw the stone rolled away, and waited for no companion. Another thing should be observed. John's narrative here lets out the fact that Mary Magdalene did not go to the sepulchre alone. For what does she say? She speaks in the plural number: "We know not where they have laid Him." That "we" can only apply to herself and the other women who had gone with her to the grave. We should notice that Mary's mournful announcement is almost the same that she made to the angels, when they asked her why she wept. (John 20:13.) Her repeated dwelling on the body being gone, and her wanting to know where it was "laid," should be noticed. May we not suspect that this holy woman, with all her faith and love, had not yet realized the great truth that Jesus was to rise again. She talks of His body, and longs to know where it is laid, and seems to think it must be a cold dead corpse still, and wishes to do it more honour. But she has forgotten altogether His repeated prediction that He would rise again! Alas, how little of Christ's teaching the best of us take in! How much we let fall! By the word "they" we must suppose Mary meant our Lord's enemies,— the chief priests, or the Roman soldiers. Perhaps we should not press the word too closely. It may be that the good woman, in her excitement and trouble, hardly knew whom she meant, and spoke indefinitely;— "somebody" has taken away. She can hardly have meant that the chief priests had taken away the body, in order to exhibit it as the dead corpse of a conquered, wicked impostor. It is fair to say that Ecolampadius actually thinks that Mary saw the angels, talked with them, and received the message for the disciples that Christ had risen, but quite forgot it! This, however, seems to me an extremely improbable view! v3.—[Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, etc.] The announcement of Mary Magdalene was so startling, that the two disciples arose at once, and went to the sepulchre, in order to find out what this rolling away of the stone meant, and to make sure that the Lord's body was gone. We need not doubt that they would at once ask Mary, "How do you know the body is gone?" and would receive the answer, "Because the stone is rolled away." But finding then, that Mary had not actually been inside the sepulchre, and seen it empty, they judged it best to go and see for themselves. When we remember that Mary the mother of our Lord was, in all human probability, in the house where Peter and John were, we may well imagine that she would be deeply anxious to have the whole matter cleared up at once. Luke, we may recollect, only mentions Peter going to the sepulchre. The verse before us fills up the narrative, and tells us that John went with him. Two witnesses would be better than one. v4.—[So they ran both together, etc.] The simple fact here mentioned shows the anxiety and excitement of the two loving Apostles. We can well suppose that Mary Magdalene's sudden announcement completely overwhelmed them, so that they knew not what to think. Who can tell that thoughts did not come in their mind, as they ran, about our Lord's oft-repeated prediction of His resurrection? Could it really be true? Could it possibly prove that all their deep sorrow was going to turn to joy? These are all conjectures, no doubt. Yet a vast quantity of thoughts may run through a mind, at a great crisis, in a very few minutes. Those who have had a narrow escape from drowning know that very well. Why John outran Peter we know not. The common opinion is that John was the younger man of the two, and so he has been always represented by painters in every age of the Church. The only evidence, however, that we have of this difference of age, is the fact that John's father is mentioned as being alive, following his calling as a fisherman with his sons, while Peter's father, Jonas, is not mentioned in the same way. Moreover, John outlived all the rest of the Apostles by many years. So he may have been a comparatively young man, when our Lord called him to be an Apostle. After all, the matter is of little importance. Bodily strength and agility are no evidence that a man possesses superior grace. The holiest saints have often had very weak and infirm bodies. Holy and zealous as John was, we have no right to contend that he felt more zeal than penitent, broken-hearted Peter, when he outran him on this eventful morning Lampe thinks it just possible that Peter was troubled in conscience by reason of his recent fall, and therefore went to the grave with a slow and hesitating step. But I doubt this. v5.—[And he stooping down, etc.] The opinion of well-informed persons who have seen the tombs near Jerusalem, is, that our Lord's sepulchre was a kind of cave hewn out of the side of a rocky hill, and that there was either a hollow place, hewn out at a little distance within the entrance of the cave, to receive the body, or that the cave sloped gradually backwards, and the body was laid at the back part of the cave. In either case we may understand that a person coming to the door of the cave (which must have been small, if a single stone could close it), could only see what was inside, by "stooping down," as we are here told John did. When John looked in, he saw nothing whatever but the empty grave, and the linen clothes in which our Lord's body had been wrapped lying together. Not going in, it is evident that he could not see very clearly the precise state of a dark cave, with only one small entrance. He only saw enough to satisfy him at a glance that the body of Christ was not there, and that the linen clothes were there. Why the beloved apostle "went not in," we do not know, and are left to conjecture. It may be that he was at once satisfied that the body of his Master was gone, and that was all he cared to know. It may be that he felt a holy reverence for the place where our Lord had lain, and shrunk from going in. It may possibly be that he felt some fear, and hardly knew what to expect next, remembering the earthquake and the rending of graves on the previous Friday. It may be that, being the younger man of the two, he waited for his elder brother to take the lead, and would touch nothing, do nothing, and take no step, without another witness beside himself. We cannot tell. The incident is precisely one of those little circumstantial details which bring out men's natural temperament. It is noteworthy that John himself is the writer who records that he "went not in." Be the motive what it may, he generously gives his brother Peter the whole honour and credit of being the first of the two to go inside the grave, and thoroughly investigate the condition of it in every particular. We should not forget that the simple fact of the "linen clothes lying," was enough to satisfy any thinking mind, that something extraordinary must have occurred. No enemy or thief, in removing our Lord's body, would have taken the trouble to remove the linen clothes in which He was wrapped. Reason points out that it would save time and trouble to take the body as it was, with the linen wrapped around it. Lampe thinks it possible that John did not go in from fear of being made unclean by a dead body. But I can hardly think this. v6.—[Then cometh Simon Peter, etc.] In this verse we see how differently different men act under the same circumstances. Grace does not alter natural temperaments, when it changes hearts. What John for some reason would not do, Peter did. On arriving, he went down at once through the mouth of the cave into the inside of the sepulchre. Then he saw, as John had seen, that the body of our Lord was not there, and that the linen clothes in which the body had been wrapped were lying there, and had been removed in some way from the body. How much linen was used by Joseph and Nicodemus we cannot tell But when we consider that one hundred pounds of aromatic powder had been used in wrapping up the body, it is not unreasonable to suppose that many yards of linen had been employed. The quantity of linen wrapped round the corpse of an Egyptian, we know from the mummies, was prodigious. It is probable that the linen wrapped round our Lord's body, which Peter saw "lying," was no small heap. It is noteworthy that two different Greek words are used, in this and the preceding verse, to express seeing. John "saw" at a glance. Peter saw as a spectator, looking round and examining. The Greek word rendered "lying" in one verse and "lie" in the other, is precisely the same, and without reason our translation varies. In both it should be "lying." v7.—[And the napkin, etc., etc.] The object of this verse seems to be to show that Peter found in the empty tomb the clearest evidence of a deliberate, orderly, and calmly-done transaction. The linen clothes, in which our Lord's body had been wrapped, were lying by themselves. The napkin which had been tied round His head was rolled up by itself in another place, separate from the linen clothes. There were no symptoms of hurry, haste, or fear. All had been done decently and in order. Everything that Peter saw contradicted the idea that the body had been stolen. No thief would have taken so much trouble about the clothes and napkin. In fact the person who had removed the body, whoever it was, must have entailed on himself needless labour, if he removed it as a dead corpse, by unwrapping the linen clothes in which the corpse was buried. The easiest plan would have been to carry away the body just as he found it, wrapped up in linen. Why were the linen clothes taken off and left behind? Why were the removers of the body so careful to take away nothing but the body? Questions like these must have sorely perplexed Peter's mind. The body, he saw plainly, was gone. But there was something in the whole appearance of things which he could not understand. Chrysostom observes, "The linen cloths lying was a sign of the resurrection. For neither if any person had removed the body, would they, before doing so, have stripped it; nor if any had stolen it, would they have taken the trouble to remove the napkin, and roll it up, and lay it in a place by itself. They would have taken the body as it was. On this account, John tells us, by anticipation, that it was buried with much myrrh, which glues linen to the body not less firmly than lead, in order that when thou hearest that the napkin lay apart, thou mayest not endure those who say He was stolen. A thief would not have been so foolish as to spend so much time on a superfluous matter. Why should he undo the cloths? How could he have escaped detection if he had done so? He would probably have spent much time in doing it, and been found out by delaying. But why did the clothes lie apart, while the napkin was wrapped together by itself? That thou mayest learn that it was not the action of men in confusion or haste, the placing some in one place and some in another, and the wrapping them together." Theophylact, as usual, follows Chrysostom; and adds, that linen cloths wrapped round the body with myrrh, would stick to it like pitch. The word translated "napkin," is only used four times in the New Testament. On one occasion, and one only, it is rendered "handkerchief." (Acts 19:12.) v8.—[Then went in also that other disciple, etc.] We are here told how John at last followed Peter, and went inside the tomb. He does not seem to have gone in at first with Peter, but to have waited without, while his brother Apostle investigated and examined everything. Then, on hearing his report, he resolved to go inside himself, and see with his own eyes. Why he hesitated at first, we are left to conjecture. Perhaps, like Mary Magdalene, he was so absorbed and overwhelmed by the fact that his Master's body was gone, that he could pay no attention to the minor details of the transaction. But when he did go inside the tomb, and saw with his own eyes the clear evidence of a deliberate, orderly removal of the body only, and the cloths left behind, it seems to have flashed across his mind that the Lord must have risen. For we are told that he "believed." Concerning the true meaning of this word "believed" in this place, there has been some dispute, but without good cause. It cannot of course mean that John became a true believer now for the first time. Such an idea is absurd. Nor yet can it only mean, I think, that John at last believed that the body of our Lord was not there. Such an interpretation seems to me cold, tame, and shallow. I hold that it can only bear one meaning, and that is, that John, when he saw the state of the tomb, believed that Christ had really risen from the dead. In short, he was the first of all our Lord's followers that believed His resurrection. v9.—[For as yet they knew not, etc.] This parenthetical comment of the Evangelist is hardly rendered with accuracy in our English version. It would be more literally translated, "As yet they had not known," in the pluperfect tense. The meaning obviously is,— "Up to this time these two disciples, like all the rest of our Lord's followers, had not fully understood the meaning of the Scriptures, which taught that Christ must rise again from the dead, after dying for our sins." Augustine suggests that one reason why the disciples did not understand our Lord's prediction of His own resurrection, was His custom of using parables in His teaching. "Being accustomed to be spoken to in parables by Him, they supposed Him to be signifying some other thing." But the worthy Father rather seems to forget that although our Lord spoke parables to the multitude, "when He was alone He expounded all things to His disciples." Yet the suggestion is worth remembering. Dwellers in the cold prosaic north, can have little idea of the enormous quantity of figurative and flowery language used in oriental countries. An Englishman going for the first time among Orientals, finds it hard to know whether those around him are using flowery expressions which mean nothing, or speaking of facts. Whether John referred to any particular text, in using this expression about "Scripture," is matter of doubt. To me it is far more likely that he had in view the general teaching of the whole Old Testament, both in types and typical events, as well as in direct texts. I suspect that he refers to such things as the receiving back of Isaac by Abraham on Moriah after he had offered him, the whale casting up Jonah on the dry land, the living bird being let go free in cleansing the leper, the scape-goat being let go alive on the day of atonement, and other like things written for our learning. The subject, I must honestly say, is a very deep one. It is vain to deny that the manner in which texts are quoted from the Old Testament in the New Testament, is sometimes very puzzling. The safest and most reverent line of thought is to believe that there is a fulness in Scripture which many of us have never realized; and that scores of texts refer to Christ's life, death, and resurrection, though we know it not. When it says here, "He must rise again," the meaning is literally, "It is necessary, or it is becoming that He should rise." It was necessary for the accomplishment of man's redemption, and for the completion of the work which Jesus came to do as our Substitute and Representative. The second Adam must die and rise again, in order to win back what the first Adam lost. The case of the Apostles is a striking example of the extent of spiritual ignorance there may be in a man, while his heart is right with God. Who would think of denying that Peter and John were true believers, and loved Christ, and were on the way to heaven? Yet here we are plainly told, that up to this time they had not understood that Jesus must rise again on the third day, after dying for our sins on the cross. Surely we must take care that we do not hastily condemn men as heretics, and set them down as graceless and godless, because they are deficient in head-knowledge. After all, how many Christians there are in the present day, who talk much about Christ's blood and Christ's death, but seem to know nothing of Christ's resurrection, and hardly give it a place in their religion, except as a fact. It is very noteworthy, that while Peter and John and their companions seem to have overlooked and forgotten our Lord's predictions that He would rise again the third day, there were certain Jews who did not forget them at all. And who were they? The very last men that we might have expected,— the chief priests and Pharisees! It is written in Matthew (Matthew 27:62-64), that they went to Pilate, and said, "We remember that deceiver said, while He was yet alive, after three days I will rise again." What a curious fact is that! Peter and John forgot their Lord's predictions, while Caiaphas and his wicked companions remembered them! Burgon quotes from Ainsworth, a saying of a Jew, commenting on Genesis 22:4 : "There are many a three things in the Holy Scripture, of which one is the resurrection of Messiah."— I add to this, that any one who examines Ainsworth's commentary on this verse will find, that he gathers together as many as fifteen places in the Old Testament where "three" is spoken of as a mystical number. v10.—[Then the disciples went...their own house.] This verse describes the end of the visit which Peter and John made to the grave. They had seen with their own eyes proofs positive that Mary Magdalene's report was true. The grave was empty, and their Master's body was gone. They both felt that there was no need for tarrying at an empty sepulchre, and resolved to return to their lodging. They could do no good by staying longer. They might do good by going away. They therefore went home: Peter confounded and perplexed, and unable to account for what he had seen; John convinced and persuaded by what he had seen, that his Master had risen from the dead. Doubtless he could not prove it yet, had not seen Him alive, and could not convince Peter of it. But for all that he believed it. The Greek words which we render, "To their own home," mean literally, "To themselves." It can only signify, in my judgment, the lodging which they occupied in Jerusalem. Though John was acquainted with the high priest, and may have occasionally visited Jerusalem on the business of his fisherman's calling, there is not the least likelihood that he had a house there. Wherever John was in Jerusalem, it is interesting to remember, in looking at the events of this wonderful morning, that Mary the mother of our Lord was probably under his roof, in accordance with our Lord's last command. May we not fairly suppose that one reason why the disciples did not linger at the tomb, like Mary Magdalene, was their earnest desire to return home, and tell the mother of our Lord what they had seen? I see nothing fanciful or unreasonable in the thought. Cyril suggests, with some probability, that one reason why Peter and John went away from the tomb so soon, was fear of the Jews. They might well expect that the anger of Caiaphas and his companions on finding the sepulchre was empty, and the body of Jesus gone, would be very great, and they would naturally turn their wrath on the helpless disciples. The day was breaking, and the sooner they got home the better. Mary Magdalene might stay near the tomb with more safety. Beza thinks that this verse leaves John, Peter, and Mary in three different states of mind. John was convinced, and believed that Jesus was risen from the dead. Peter was uncertain, wondering, and amazed. Mary could not yet believe it at all. The interview between the Lord Jesus and Mary Magdalene immediately after His resurrection, described in these verses, is a narrative peculiar to John. No other Evangelist has been inspired to record it. Of all the accounts of the appearances of our Lord, after He rose from the dead, none perhaps is so affecting and touching as this. He that can read this simple story without a deep interest, must have a very cold and unfeeling heart. We see, first, in these verses, that those who love Christ most diligently and perseveringly, are them that receive most privileges from Christ's hand. It is a touching fact, and one to be carefully noted, that Mary Magdalene would not leave the sepulcher, when Peter and John went away to their own home. Love to her gracious Master would not let her leave the place where He had been lain. Where He was now she could not tell. What had become of Him she did not know. But love made her linger about the empty tomb, where Joseph and Nicodemus had recently laid Him. Love made her honor the last place where His precious body had been seen by mortal eyes. And her love reaped a rich reward. She saw the angels whom Peter and John had never observed. She actually heard them speak, and had soothing words addressed to her. She was the first to see our Lord after He rose from the dead, the first to hear His voice, the first to hold conversation with Him. Can any one doubt that this was written for our learning? Wherever the Gospel is preached throughout the world, this little incident testifies that them that honor Christ will be honored by Christ. As it was in the morning of the first Resurrection day, so will it be as long as the Church stands. The great principle contained in the passage before us, will hold good till the Lord comes again. All believers have not the same degree of faith, or hope, or knowledge, or courage, or wisdom; and it is vain to expect it. But it is a certain fact that them that love Christ most fervently, and cleave to Him most closely, will always enjoy most communion with Him, and feel most of the witness of the Spirit in their hearts. It is precisely them that wait on the Lord, in the temper of Mary Magdalene, to whom the Lord will reveal Himself most fully, and make them know and feel more than others. To know Christ is good; but to "know that we know Him" is far better. We see, secondly, in these verses, that the fears and sorrows of believers are often quite needless. We are told that Mary stood at the sepulcher weeping, and wept as if nothing could comfort her. She wept when the angels spoke to her; "Woman," they said, "why weepest thou?" She was weeping still when our Lord spoke to her,— "Woman," He also said, "why weepest thou?" And the burden of her complaint was always the same,— "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." Yet all this time her risen Master was close to her, with "body, flesh, and bones, and all things pertaining to the perfection of man's nature." Her tears were needless. Her anxiety was unnecessary. Like Hagar in the wilderness, she had a well of water by her side, but she had not eyes to see it. What thoughtful Christian can fail to see, that we have here a faithful picture of many a believer's experience? How often we are anxious when there is no just cause for anxiety! How often we mourn over the absence of things which in reality are within our grasp, and even at our right hand! Two-thirds of the things we fear in life never happen at all, and two-thirds of the tears we shed are thrown away, and shed in vain. Let us pray for more faith and patience, and allow more time for the full development of God's purposes. Let us believe that things are often working together for our peace and joy, which seem at one time to contain nothing but bitterness and sorrow. Old Jacob said at one time of his life, "all these things are against me" (Genesis 42:36); yet he lived to see Joseph again, rich and prosperous, and to thank God for all that had happened. If Mary had found the seal of the tomb unbroken, and her Master's body lying cold within, she might well have wept! The very absence of the body which made her weep, was a token for good, and a cause of joy for herself and all mankind. We see, thirdly, in these verses, what low and earthly thoughts of Christ may creep into the mind of a true believer. It seems impossible to gather any other lesson from the solemn words which our Lord addressed to Mary Magdalene, when He said, "Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." No doubt the language is somewhat mysterious, and ought to be delicately and reverently handled. Yet it is only reasonable to suppose that the first surprise, and the reaction from great sorrow to great joy, was more than the mind of Mary could bear. She was only a woman, though a holy and faithful woman. It is highly probable that, in the first excess of her joy, she threw herself at our Lord's feet, and made greater demonstrations of feeling than were seemly or becoming. Very likely she behaved too much like one who thought all must be right if she had her Lord's bodily presence, and all must be wrong in His bodily absence. This was not the highest style of faith. She acted, in short, like one who forgot that her Master was God as well as man. She made too little of His divinity, and too much of His humanity. And hence she called forth our Lord's gentle rebuke, "Touch Me not! There is no need of this excessive demonstration of feeling. I am not yet ascending to my Father for forty days,— your present duty is not to linger at my feet, but to go and tell my brethren that I have risen. Think of the feelings of others as well as of your own." After all, we must confess that the fault of this holy woman was one into which Christians have always been too ready to fall. In every age there has been a tendency in the minds of many, to make too much of Christ's bodily presence, and to forget that He is not a mere earthly friend, but one who is "God over all, blessed forever," as well as man. The pertinacity with which Romanists and their allies cling to the doctrine of Christ's real corporal presence in the Lord's Supper, is only another exhibition of Mary's feeling when she wanted Christ's body, or no Christ at all. Let us pray for a right judgment in this matter, as in all other things concerning our Lord's person. Let us be content to have Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith, and present when two or three are met in His name, and to wait for the real presence of Christ's body till He comes again. What we really need is not His literal flesh, but His Spirit. It is not for nothing that it is written, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing." "If we have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we Him no more." (John 6:63; 2 Corinthians 5:16.) We see, lastly, in these verses, how kindly and graciously our Lord speaks of His disciples. He bids Mary Magdalene carry a message to them as "His brethren." He bids her tell them that His Father was their Father, and His God their God. It was but three days before that they had all forsaken Him shamefully, and fled. Yet this merciful Master speaks as if all was forgiven and forgotten. His first thought is to bring back the wanderers, to bind up the wounds of their consciences, to reanimate their courage, to restore them to their former place. This was indeed a love that passes knowledge. To trust deserters, and to show confidence in backsliders, was a compassion which man can hardly understand. So true is that word of David: "Like as a Father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him. For He knoweth our frame; He remembereth that we are dust." (Psalms 103:13-14.) Let us leave the passage with the comfortable reflection that Jesus Christ never changes. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. As He dealt with His erring disciples in the morning of His resurrection, so will He deal with all who believe and love Him, till He comes again. When we wander out of the way He will bring us back. When we fall He will raise us again. But he will never break His royal word,— "Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out." (John 6:37.) The saints in glory will have one anthem in which every voice and heart will join: "He hath not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities." (Psalms 103:10.) ================== Notes— v11.—[But Mary stood without...weeping.] The question naturally arises, "Why did not Mary go away from the tomb with Peter and John?"— The answer to that question must probably be found in the curiously different temperaments of men and women. Mary acted like a woman, and Peter and John acted like men. The head of a woman is generally weaker than that of a man, but the affections are generally stronger.— In the case before us the heart of Mary was not satisfied. Her mind was not convinced, like that of John, that our Lord had risen from the dead. It was not enough for her to know that the body was gone, and the tomb empty, and something wonderful had occurred, as it was for Peter. Her strong love and gratitude towards our Lord made her linger near the tomb, in the faint hope that something might yet turn up to explain where the body was gone. At any rate she could not tear herself away from the place where her Master's body had last been seen, and when Peter and John departed she stayed behind, like a real warm-hearted woman, and gave a natural vent to her feelings in tears. She felt as if she must see something, before she could be satisfied, and so lingered near the grave, perhaps hardly knowing what she expected to see. The Lord had compassion on her. Her deep love was richly rewarded. On Mary staying at the sepulchre, Andrews remarks, "The going away of Peter and John commends Mary's staying behind. To the grave she came before them, from the grave she went to tell them, to the grave she returned with them, at the grave she remains behind them." "To stay, while others do so, while company stays, that is the world's love. But Peter is gone, and John too; all are gone and she left alone. Thus to stay is love, and constant love." Epiphanius, an ancient writer (A. D. 390), according to Heinsius, maintains the monstrous theory that the Mary here spoken of is the mother of our Lord, and not Mary Magdalene! It is well to know that the ancient Fathers were not always wise, and are certainly not infallible in expounding Scripture. Tholuck thinks that Mary did not go to the sepulchre with Peter and John, but followed them alone, more slowly. This is possible; but I rather doubt it. [And as she wept...stooped...sepulchre.] How long Mary wept, after she was left alone, we are left to conjecture. Probably not very long. At last it came into her mind to stoop down and look into the grave, through the small door or opening against which the stone had been rolled. It is worth noticing that we are not told that she had either entered, or looked into the sepulchre, before. Up to this time apparently she had only heard the report of Peter and John. Now, left alone, she probably felt a natural curiosity and anxiety to see with her own eyes what they had reported, and so, in the middle of her weeping, she stooped down and looked in, and at once saw a wondrous sight. I think Mary's case teaches us that heart is of more value in God's sight than intellect. Those who feel most and love most get most privileges. The more we love, the more we are like to Christ. v12.—[And seeth two angels...white...sitting, etc.] The incident here recorded is very remarkable and interesting. Mary saw figures in white sitting inside the grave. They evidently looked like men, but they were in reality angels,— two of those mysterious ministering spirits whom the Bible teaches us that God is pleased to employ on great occasions. An angel announced the coming birth of John Baptist and of Christ himself. Angels told the shepherds that Christ was born. Angels ministered to our Lord after the temptation, and an angel strengthened Him in Gethsemane. And now also angels appeared in the day of our Lord's resurrection. They first announced that He was born, and they again, after thirty-three years, announced that He was risen. The whole subject of angels is very deep and mysterious, and one about which we must beware of holding anything that is not revealed. But the case before us teaches one or two wonderful things, which we should do well to remember. These angels evidently came and went away, appeared and disappeared, after a manner supernatural, invisible, and inexplicable to our minds. It is clear that angels were at the tomb, when the party of women arrived there, after Mary Magdalene had run to tell Peter and John. It is equally clear that they were not to be seen, when Peter and John ran to the grave on hearing Mary's report. Not one word do we read of their seeing angels. Yet it is equally clear that when Mary Magdalene looked in, after Peter and John went away, she saw two angels and talked with them. These are very deep things. They prove plainly that the angels of God appear and disappear, are visible or invisible, instantaneously and supernaturally, according as God commissions them. In short they are beings of a totally different nature to our own, and are in all the conditions of their constitution totally unlike us. For anything we know, they were in the tomb when Peter and John inspected it, but at that moment were invisible. For anything we know, they are now very near us every minute of our existence, and doing God's will concerning us, though we are utterly unaware of their presence. All this no doubt is very mysterious, and past the power of man to explain and comprehend. One thing, however, is very certain. Neither here nor elsewhere do we ever find the slightest warrant in Scripture for praying to angels, any more than to dead saints, or for giving them the smallest portion of worship, as if they were divine. Like ourselves, after all, they are only God's creatures. The expression "in white," means literally "in white robes or garments." It is an adjective, and we are left to supply the substantive. The Holy Ghost here abstains from telling us the precise fashion of apparel which these angels wore. The garment worn by the angel mentioned in Mark, at the resurrection, was a long stole or flowing robe. (Mark 16:5.) It is worth noticing that "white" was the colour of the Lord's raiment in the transfiguration, and white is the colour in which the angels always seem to have appeared. It need hardly be said that the colour is symbolical of that perfect purity and freedom from defilement, which is the character of the inhabitants of heaven. It will be the garment of the saved souls in glory. (Revelation 3:4; Revelation 7:9.) The attitude in which the angels were seen by Mary deserves attention. "Sitting one at the head and the other at the feet," where our Lord's body had lain, they would seem to have been placed there by God as watchmen and guards over the sacred body of our Lord, during the time He was in the grave. It is written, "He shall give His angels charge over Thee." (Psalms 91:11.) Some have thought that the position of the angels points to that of the Cherubim, who sat on the two ends of the mercy-seat, over the ark, with their faces toward each other. (Exodus 25:20; 2 Chronicles 3:13.) Bengel thinks that this "sitting" was meant to intimate that their work was done. This seems to me doubtful, because angels need no rest. Cyril thinks that the attitude of the two angels was meant to show Mary, that our Lord's body had been safely guarded by them, and that no one could have stolen it away against their consent. If one angel could slay 180,000 of Sennacherib's army, what could two do? Andrews observes, "We learn that between the angels there was no striving for places. He that sat at the feet was as well content with his place, as he that sat at the head. We should learn from their example. With us both angels would have been at the head, and never a one at the feet. With us none would be at the feet by his good will: we must be head-angels all!" v13.—[And they say unto her, Woman, why, etc.] The address of the angels to Mary is that of gentle and kind inquiry. We cannot doubt that they knew well why she wept. They ask the question in order to stir up in her mind self-inquiry, as to whether she had cause to weep or not. "What is the reason of this excessive lamentation? Search your own heart. Are you quite sure that this empty tomb does not show that you ought to be rejoicing?" Mary's reply to the angels is almost word for word what she had told Peter and John, only in the singular number. It shows plainly that the one thing that weighed on her mind was the disappearance of our Lord's body, and her ignorance what had become of it. Of His resurrection she evidently had no idea at present. Her only thought was that His body was dead, that it had been taken away, and that she wanted to know where it was. To this one notion she sticks, and not even the appearance of angels can make her give it up. And yet the good woman must have often heard our Lord foretell His death and resurrection. How slow we are to give up long-standing prejudices! How backward to receive truths which contradict our little private systems of religion! It should be observed that Mary told Peter and John that "the Lord" was taken away. When she speaks to the angels here, she says, "My Lord." In both cases she speaks indefinitely of "they," without indicating whom she means. The calmness of manner with which Mary speaks to these two angels can hardly fail to strike us. She cannot have supposed they were two men only, whether enemies or friends. The mere fact that Peter and John had not seen them in the grave, must surely have shown her that they were angels. Yet she answers their question without hesitation, like one who feared nothing in her anxiety about her Lord. May we not however consider that a belief in the reality and ministry of angels was far more common among Jews than it is among Christians? They perhaps believed too much about them. It may be feared that we go into the opposite extreme, and believe too little. Andrews remarks on Mary's needless weeping,— "All was in error: tears of grief,— but false grief, imagining that to be which was not, and Him to be dead which was alive. She weeps, because she finds the grave empty, which, God forbid she should have found full, for then Christ must have been dead still, and there would be no resurrection. And this case of Mary Magdalene is our case oftentimes. It is the error of our conceit to weep when we have no cause, and to joy when we have as little. False joys and false sorrows, false hopes and false fears, this life of ours is full of. God help us!" v14.—[And when...turned...back...saw Jesus standing.] Why Mary turned back at this moment we are not told. I feel no doubt there was some reason. The Greek words are very emphatical: "She turned to the things or places behind her." (a) It maybe that she turned away from the questioners, as not caring to continue conversation with them. (b) It may be that she heard a footstep behind her, and turned to see who it was. (c) It may be that the shadow of some one behind her fell on the entrance to the tomb. The sun would be in the east, and if the tomb faced that way, its horizontal rays would throw the shadow of any person behind her on the tomb. (d) It may be that she observed some gesture or motion on the part of the angels with whom she was talking, which told her that some one was behind her. Who can tell but these holy spirits, who doubtless recognized the Lord, rose respectfully from their sitting position, as soon as they saw Jesus appear. I like this last solution best, for my own part. I cannot for a moment suppose that the angels would remain sitting motionless, when Jesus appeared. And I believe that Mary, as she talked with them, detected at once by their altered manner, that there was some one behind her. This it was that made her "turn herself back." Such little touches give a wonderful life and reality to the whole narrative, in my judgment. Chrysostom observes, "While Mary was speaking, Christ suddenly appearing behind her, struck the angels with awe; and they, beholding their Ruler, showed immediately by their bearing, their look, their movements, that they saw the Lord. This drew the woman's attention, and caused her to turn." The same view is taken by Athanasius, Theophylact, Brentius, Gerhard, and Andrews. [And knew not that it was Jesus.] There are but three ways in which we can explain Mary not recognizing Christ at once. (a) She was weeping bitterly, and her eyes were dim with tears. This, however, seems very improbable. (b) It was not broad day-light yet, and it was too dusky to distinguish any one. This is Cyril's view; but it can hardly be correct, considering all that had already occurred this Sunday morning. (c) Her eyes were holden supernaturally, like those of the disciples walking to Emmaus, so that she did not distinguish the figure before her to be that of our Lord. This appears to me by far the most likely solution, miraculous as the circumstance certainly was. But the condition of our Lord's risen body was altogether different from that of His body before crucifixion. We cannot pretend to explain in the least where He was, and what He was doing in the intervals between His various appearances, during the forty days before His ascension. We need not therefore hesitate to believe that He could assume such an appearance, that even a disciple like Mary did not recognize Him at first, or that He could cause her eyes to be unable to distinguish Him, even when close to her. After all, what a striking emblem this little incident supplies of the spiritual experience of hundreds of Christ's believing people even at this very day. How many are ever mourning and sorrowing, and have no comfort in their religion, while Christ is close to them. But they do not know it, and, like Mary, go on weeping. v15.—[Jesus saith....Why weepest thou....seekest thou.] The first question that Jesus asked of Mary was precisely the same that the angels had asked. "Woman, why art thou weeping? Art thou quite sure that thou art right to weep over this empty grave, and oughtest not rather to rejoice?"— The second question was even more searching than the first. "Whom seekest thou? Who is this person that thou art seeking among the dead? Hast thou not forgotten that He whom thou seekest is one who has power to take life again, and who predicted that He would rise?"— I must think that in both these questions there was a gentle latent reproof intended for this holy woman. Faithful and loving as she was, she had too much forgotten her Master's teaching about His death and resurrection. These questions were meant to rouse her to a recollection of things often said in her hearing. Of course our Lord knew perfectly well why she was weeping, and whom she was seeking. He needed not to ask her. He asked for her benefit rather than His own information. But excessive grief has an absorbing and stupefying effect on the mind and memory. Mary could think of nothing but that her Lord's body was gone, and this swallowed up all her thoughts. [She supposing Him, etc.] Here we see what Mary's first thought was, when she heard a strange voice, and saw a strange figure. She catches at the idea that this person may be the keeper of the garden in which Joseph's sepulchre was, and that, having probably been keeping watch over the garden all night, he may know what had become of her Master's body, or may even have removed it himself. "Sir," she says, "If thou art the person who has taken away my Lord out of the tomb, only tell me where thou hast carried His body, and I will take Him away."— Once more we see that this holy woman could only think of her Master as one dead, and that her one absorbing idea was how she could recover His corpse and do it honour. As for His resurrection and victory over death, she seems utterly unable to get hold of it at present. Wonderful is it to see how much of Christ's teaching was apparently thrown away on His disciples, and clean forgotten! Ministers who complain of the ignorance of their hearers, should learn patience, when they mark the imperfect knowledge of Christ's own followers. The Greek word rendered "Sir," in this verse, might have been equally correctly rendered "Lord." But it is rendered "Sir," in like manner, in the conversation between our Lord and the Samaritan woman, in the fourth chapter of this Gospel. In both cases it is a term of respect, such as a Jewish woman would address to a man. It is noteworthy that Mary does not name her Master to the supposed gardener. She simply says "Him,"— "if thou hast borne Him hence, I will take Him away." It is the language of one so absorbed in the thought of her Lord, that she thinks it needless to name Him; and assumes, as a matter of course, that the gardener will understand whom she means. It is noteworthy that Mary talks of "taking Him away." How one weak woman like her could suppose that she was able to lift and carry away the dead body of a man, we cannot of course understand. It is clear that she either meant (a) that she would soon find friends who would remove the body, or else (b) that she spoke hurriedly, fervently, impulsively, and passionately, without reflecting on what she was saying. I incline to think the latter view is the correct one. Luther, quoted by Besser, remarks on this verse, "Mary's heart was so filled up with Christ and thoughts about Christ, that besides Him she neither hears nor sees anything. She stands alone by the sepulchre. She is not frightened at the sight of angels. She addresses Christ abruptly, supposing Him to be the gardener; and if he has taken Him away, she is ready to carry Him back to the sepulchre." Andrews observes, "Him is enough with love. Who knows not who it is, though we never tell His name, nor say a word more?" v16.—[Jesus saith unto her, Mary, etc.] We are here told how our Lord at last revealed Himself to this faithful disciple, after her patience, love, and boldness had been fully proved. Little as she had shown herself able to understand the great truth of her Saviour's resurrection, she had at any rate shown that none loved Him more, or clung to Him more tenaciously, than she did. And she had her reward. One single word was enough to open her eyes, to let the whole truth shine in upon her mind, and to reveal the great fact that her Saviour was not dead but alive, and that He had won a victory over the grave.— Speaking in His usual well-known voice, our Lord addressed her by her name,— the name by which, no doubt, He had often addressed her before. That single word touched a spring, as it were, and opened her eyes in a moment. Need we doubt that at once the whole world seemed turned upside down to the astonished woman; and that under the influence of such an amazing revulsion of feeling as that much-loved voice must have caused, her mind could only find expression in one passionate word— "Rabboni," or Master. The expression, "turned herself," in this verse, is rather curious. We know, from John 20:14, that Mary had already turned once from the grave, when Jesus appeared behind her. Here again we are told that she "turned herself." The simplest explanation seems to be, that when she did not recognize the person who spoke to her, and thought He had been the gardener, she partially turned away, as a woman naturally would from a strange man, and hardly looked at Him, while she spoke of taking the body away. But the moment the voice of Jesus sounded in her ears, she turned again directly to Him, and made some movement towards Him, as she uttered the cry, "Rabboni."— Thus there were three movements: first, a turning round to see who was behind her; second, a partial turning away, when she heard a voice she did not recognize; and finally, a quick, passionate turning round entirely, when the well-known voice of her Master said, "Mary." So at least it appears to me. Chrysostom says, "It seems to me that after having said, 'Where hast thou laid Him?' she turned to the angels to ask why they were astonished; and that then Christ, by calling her by name, turned her back to Himself from them, and revealed Himself by His voice." The boundless compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ to His believing people comes out wonderfully in this verse. He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He knows how weak our bodily frame is, and how much excessive sorrow can unnerve and stupefy our minds. He can pass over much darkness of understanding, much slowness of comprehension, when He sees real, genuine, hearty, bold, persevering, thorough love to Himself and His Person. We see this prominently brought out in His dealing with Mary Magdalene, when He revealed Himself to her. He graciously pardons her forgetfulness of His oft-repeated declaration that He would rise again after His death, pities her deep sorrow, and abundantly rewards her love. These things are written for our learning. Jesus never changes. What He was, when He revealed Himself to Mary Magdalene, He is at this day. Rabboni, according to Parkhurst, "is nearly of the same import as Rabbi. John explains both by the same word,— teacher. But Lightfoot and others say it was a term of higher respect." Parkhurst thinks it is formed from the Chaldee, and includes the idea, "MY Master." v17.—[Jesus saith...Touch Me not...my Father.] This saying of our Lord is undeniably a very "deep thing," and the real meaning of it is a point which has greatly perplexed commentators. I suspect it is one of those things which will never be fully settled until the Lord comes. In the meantime we must be content to make humble conjectures. It will clear our way to remember that our Lord could not possibly mean by saying, "Touch Me not," that there was anything sinful or wrong in Mary touching His risen body. The mere fact that a few minutes after this interview with Mary, He allowed the other women who had been to the grave to "hold Him by the feet " (Matthew 28:9), completely settles that point. Moreover, within a week after this very day, He says to Thomas, "Reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side." (John 20:27.) This alone entirely contradicts the notion that our Lord's body might not be touched before His ascension. But having cleared the way negatively, the question yet remains, "What did our Lord mean positively?" In order to understand the meaning of "Touch Me not," we must try to realize the state of mind in which Mary Magdalene was, when our Lord revealed Himself to her. A very slight knowledge of human nature, and especially of woman's nature, will tell us that the sudden discovery that Jesus was alive and standing before her, would throw her into a violent state of excitement, and produce an immense revulsion of feeling, from deep despondency to extravagant joy. May we not well believe that under the influence of this excitement, this holy woman might be more demonstrative than was seemly, and might exhibit her feelings by actions and gestures that our Lord saw it absolutely needful to repress?— Can we not understand that a warm-hearted, impulsive Jewish woman, holy and pure-minded as she certainly was, would be likely to cast herself at our Lord's feet, to say the least, in a passionate ecstasy of delight, and to hold them fast, kissing and embracing them, like the woman in Simon's house, as if she would never let them go?— And can we not well understand that our wise Master, who knew all hearts, thought it good to check and repress her, and therefore, for her soul's benefit, and not unkindly, said, "Touch Me not."— Nothing would be more likely to calm the good woman's mind, and to recall her to a reverent sense of what was due to herself and to her Lord, than this prohibition to "touch." Such is my view of this wonderful expression. It is to my mind a very suggestive one, and deserves the especial attention of ministers, in carrying on their private pastoral work. But I forbear. Let it however never be forgotten (and I desire to speak with the utmost reverence and delicacy), that when our Lord allowed the women, mentioned by Matthew (Matthew 28:9), to "hold Him by the feet," there were several women present together, and some of them mothers and not young. When, on the contrary, He said to Mary Magdalene, "Touch Me not," He spoke to one who in all probability was a young woman, and He and she were alone! The Greek word we render "touch," according to Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, frequently means "fasten oneself to, cling to, hang on by, lay hold of, or grasp." Homer constantly uses the word in this sense. This deserves special notice. Schleusuer and Parkhurst agree with Liddell and Scott. The words, "for I am not yet ascended to my Father," are even more difficult than "Touch Me not;" and the connection between the two sayings is the hardest knot of all the sentence. (a) Some think that the sense is, "I have not yet ascended to my Father. Till I have ascended and taken my seat at His right hand, my work as your Saviour is not perfect and complete. Do not therefore touch Me and fasten upon Me, as if you would fain keep Me upon earth for ever, now that I have risen again. Remember that my ascension is as much a part of my great work of redemption as my crucifixion and resurrection. I have not yet ascended. Do not, therefore, behave as though you wished to detain Me here below, and never to part with Me again." (b) Some think that the sense is, "I am not yet ascending to my Father. I shall not ascend for forty days. There will, therefore, be abundant time for seeing, touching, hearing, and conferring with Me. Do not therefore now waste precious time on this eventful morning by embracing my feet, and demonstrating your affection to my person. Rather rise, and lose no time in going to my brethren, and telling them that I am risen. Think of others; and do not occupy yourself, as you are disposed to do, in touching my feet and gratifying your own feelings. Natural as it is, there is other work to do now. Go and do it, and do not linger here. Touch Me not." This is the view of Beza, Brentius, and Bishop Hall. (c) Some think, as Melancthon, that our Lord had in view His second advent and kingdom, when all who have known and loved Him on earth, shall at length dwell with Him in holy familiarity, and go out from His presence no more. Melancthon says, "It is as if Christ would say, Then shall you touch Me, when I have ascended to my Father: that is, when I shall bring thee and all my Church to the Father at the last day. Another kingdom and another life remains yet to be given, in which you shall enjoy fellowship with Me and my Father." I honestly confess that I find it almost impossible to say which of the three opinions I have here described deserves most attention. If I must decide, I incline to prefer the second one, and I think it is more in keeping with the latter part of the verse. The weakest point of this view is the future sense which it puts on the words, "I am not ascended." The Greek word is in the perfect tense, and the perfect is undoubtedly used sometimes in the sense of a future. (Compare Romans 14:23; John 17:10; and see Telf's Greek Grammar, vol. ii., p. 65; and Winer's Grammar, p. 288. Clark's edition.) But it is rather awkward that "I ascend" comes immediately after in the present tense. The reader must decide for himself which view he prefers. Chrysostom says, "Methinks Mary wished still to converse with Jesus as before, and in her joy perceived nothing great in Him, although He had become far more excellent in the flesh. To lead her therefore from this idea, and that she might speak to Him with awe (for neither with the disciples doth He henceforth appear so familiar as before), He raiseth her thoughts, that she should give more reverent heed to Him. To have said, 'Approach Me not as you did before, for matters are not in the same state: nor shall I henceforth be with you in the same way,' would have been harsh and high-sounding. But the saying, 'I am not yet ascended to my Father,' though not painful to hear, was the same thing. For by saying, 'I am not yet ascended,' He showeth that He hasteth and passeth thither, and that it was not meet that one about to depart thither, and no longer to converse with men, should be looked on with the same feelings as before." Augustine says, "There is a spiritual meaning latent here.— Either this is so spoken, 'Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended,' that the woman is a figure of the Church of the Gentiles, which did not believe on Christ until He was ascended unto the Father;— or else Jesus would have men so believe in Him, or touch Him spiritually, as knowing that Himself and the Father are one.— Mary might believe in such a way as if she thought Him unequal to the Father, which thought is forbidden to her. 'Touch Me not': i.e., 'Do not believe in Me in such wise as thou art yet minded in thy thoughts of Me: let not thy perception reach only to the thing I was made for thee, without passing beyond to that by which thou wast made. I am not yet ascended to my Father. Then shalt thou touch Me, when thou believest Me to be God not unequal to the Father.'" Calvin says, "The meaning of these words is, that Christ's state of resurrection would not be full and complete, until He should sit down in heaven at the right hand of the Father. Therefore Mary did wrong in satisfying herself with having nothing more than the half of His resurrection, and desiring only to enjoy His presence in the world." Lightfoot says, "These words relate to what Christ had spoken formerly about sending the Comforter, and that He would not leave them comfortless, but would come to them. Christ says to Mary, 'I must first ascend to my Father, before I can bestow those things upon you which I have promised. Do not therefore touch Me, and detain Me upon any expectation of that kind. Rather wait for my ascension, and go and tell the same things to my brethren for their encouragement.'" Poole says, "The best opinion seems to be the opinion of those who think our Saviour saw Mary too fond, as if she thought He had been raised up to such a converse with them as He had before His death. This error is all He tasks her of, not forbidding any kind of touching, so as to satisfy herself He was truly risen, but restraining any gross conception.— He reminded Mary that He was about to ascend to His Father, though He had not yet ascended, and was therefore not to be enjoyed by them with so much freedom and familiarity as before." Bishop Hall says, "There may be a kind of carnality in spiritual notions. 'If I have known Christ after the flesh, from henceforth I know Him no more.' That Thou livedst here, my Saviour, in this shape, that colour, this stature, that habit, I should be glad to know: nothing that concerns Thee can be unuseful. Could I say, here Thou satest, here Thou layest, here Thou wast crucified, here Thou wast buried, I should with much content see and recount those ceremonials of Thy presence. But if I shall so fasten my thoughts on them, as not to look higher, to the spiritual part of these achievements, to the power and issue of Thy resurrection, I am none the better.'" Rollock says, "The meaning in effect is this. It is not time for thee to touch Me now, till that time I be in glory, and then touch Me by the arm of faith as much as thou canst or mayest. Ye must consider that she was too much addicted to His bodily presence. She thought He should have remained and dwelt on earth as He did before. Therefore He would not let her come near Him, until He instructed her of a spiritual touching, and that He was not to stay here, but to dwell with His Father in heaven. "Mark this lesson. Some men love the Lord entirely, and yet when they come to His service they fail: for such is the grossness of our nature that we cannot incline to that spiritual service which He chiefly requires. Popery is full of this grossness. They can do nothing if they have not His carnal presence, either in Himself, or in a stock or stone, or in a piece of bread, and therefore they draw a bodily presence of Him in the sacrament. All their religion is earthly,— no grace, no spirit in it. But did the Lord accept that gross service that Mary offered? I am certain He loved Mary better than the Pope and all his priests; yet well as He liked Mary, He liked not her service. He says to her, Touch me not! The Lord keep us from gross service, and make us touch Him by faith." Andrews says, "The most we can make is that here Mary failed in somewhat. Not that she did it in any immodest or indecent manner. God forbid! Never think of that. But she was only a little too forward, it may be: not with the due respect that was meet."— "I tell you plainly I do not like her Rabboni. It was no Easter-day salutation; it should have been some better term, expressing more reverence."— "The touch was not the right touch, and all for want of expressing more regard; not for want of reverence at all, but of reverence enough."— "It is no excuse to say it was all out of love. Never lay it upon that. Love, Christ loves well. But love, if it be right, doth nothing uncomely, keeps decorum, forgets not what belongs to duty and decency, carries itself accordingly."— "A strange kind of love, when for very love to Christ we care not how we use Him, or carry ourselves toward Him. Which, being Mary's case, she heard and heard quickly. Touch Me not,— you are not now in case till you shall have learned to touch after a more regardful manner." Sibbes says, "Mary was too much addicted to Christ's bodily presence. It is this that men have laboured for from the beginning of the world,— to be too much addicted to present things and to sense. They will worship Christ; but they must have a picture before them. They will adore Christ; but they must bring His body down to a piece of bread: they must have a presence. And so instead of raising their hearts to God and Christ in a heavenly manner, they pull down God and Christ to them. And, therefore, saith Christ, 'Touch Me not in that manner: it is not with Me as it was before.' We must take heed of mean and base conceits of Christ." Sherlock, in his "Trial of the Witnesses," says, "The natural sense of this place is this: Mary Magdalene, upon seeing Jesus, fell at His feet, and laid hold on them, and held them as if she never meant to let them go. Then Christ said to her, "Touch Me not, or hang not about Me now. You will have other opportunities of seeing Me, for I go not yet to my Father. Lose no time then, but go quickly with my message to my brethren." West, on the Resurrection, says, "I take Christ's forbidding Mary to touch Him, to have been meant as a signification of His intention to see her and the disciples again; just as in ordinary life, when one friend says to another, 'Do not take leave, for I am not going yet,' he means to let him know that he purposes to see him again before he sets out on his journey." Lampe mentions a strange view of "Touch Me not" maintained by Bauldry, a German professor. He would put a full stop at "not," and place it first in the sentence, rendering it thus, "No! I am not the gardener. Touch Me, and see that I am Thy Saviour risen." He also mentions a view held by many, that it means, "Do not try whether I am risen by touching Me. It is I myself." Both views, however, seem very improbable. Paulus, the German theologian, maintains the monstrous notion that our Lord meant, "Do not lay a finger on Me, because my wounds still smart." This is simply ridiculous, to say the least. Hengstenberg says, "The reason of the prohibition must be sought in the personal character of Mary, and in the passionate nature of the touch which sprang from that character. She thought that the limits which had formerly existed between herself and the Lord (the old style of confidence is a very incorrect idea) were, now that the Saviour had passed into another form of existence, removed, and that she might now give free course to her feelings without fearing the admixture of anything human in her sentiment toward her Lord. But her Lord repelled her: Touch Me not." Wordsworth says, "The term (in the Greek) indicates not only a prohibition of a particular act, but forbids a habit: i.e., of clinging to Him with a bodily touch. And the words, 'I have not ascended,' contain a precept concerning the time when the habit of touching Christ may be exercised. He is to be touched after He has ascended,— that is, He is then to be truly touched, when He is beyond the reach of the bodily touch. And one of the purposes of His absence and His ascension into heaven was to elicit and exercise that touch,— the touch of faith." Burgon remarks what a strange thing it is, that "both the old world and the new should have begun with the same prohibition, Touch not." [But go...my brethren...say unto them.] This sentence is strikingly full of wisdom, tender thoughtfulness, and kindness. Wisely our Lord summons Mary Magdalene to an act of duty to others. He bids her not spend time in demonstrations of affection, but arise and be useful.— Thoughtfully our Lord's first consideration is for His poor scattered disciples. Weak and erring as they had been, He still loved them, and at once sends them a message. He did not mean to cast them off, or forget them.— Kindly He calls them "my brethren." All was pardoned and forgiven. He still regarded them as His dear brethren,— risen, conqueror over the grave as He was,— and would have them look on Him as an elder brother. This is the first time our Lord ever called the disciples "brethren." Bucer thinks that "my brethren" in this place really means "my brethren according to the flesh:" i.e., James and others, whose faith was weaker perhaps than that of the other Apostles. But the vast majority of commentators see in the expression nothing of the kind, and regard it only as a term of affection applied to all the Apostles. Calvin properly refers us to Psalms 22:22 : "I will declare thy name unto my brethren." See also Hebrews 2:11. Andrews remarks that the words "my brethren" was "a word to be touched and taken hold of. It was so once when Benhadad's servant laid hold on the word of the King of Israel, 'He is my brother.'" (1 Kings 20:32-33.) He adds that it implied identity of nature, and identity of love and affection after the resurrection, and no change. Let us mark what a strong proof we have here of the duty of telling others the good news of the Gospel. The very first work that a risen Christ proposes to the first disciple to whom He revealed Himself, is the work of telling others. It was a deep saying of the four leprous men: "This day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace: if we tarry till the morning light, some mischief will come upon us." (2 Kings 7:9.) Cyril remarks what an honour was put on women, when a woman was commissioned to be the first person to proclaim the tidings of the resurrection. [I ascend...my Father...your God.] The message which our Lord desires Mary to carry to His disciples is remarkable. He does not bid her say "I have risen," but "I ascend." He would evidently have them understand that His resurrection was only a step towards His ascension, and that He did not rise again in order to tarry with them upon earth, but in order to go up to heaven as a conqueror, and sit down at God's right hand as their forerunner, representative, priest, advocate, and friend. The message is clearly elliptical. It is as though our Lord said, "Say unto them that I have risen from the dead, and that I am soon about to ascend into heaven, to Him who is my Father and my God, and their Father and their God also." When our Lord dwells on His ascension more than His resurrection, it seems to me that He names it as the great conclusion and accomplishment of the work He came to do, and the necessary consequence of His rising again. It is as though He said, "My work is finished, my battle is won, and I shall not be much longer with you in the world. Get ready to receive my last instructions." Calvin says, "Christ forbids the Apostles to fix their whole attention on His resurrection viewed simply in itself, but exhorts them to proceed further, until they come to the spiritual kingdom, the heavenly glory, and God Himself." Andrews remarks, "We ourselves had better lie still in our graves, better never rise, than rise and rising not ascend." Flavel remarks, "If Christ had not ascended, He could not have interceded, as He now does in heaven, for us. And do but take away Christ's intercession, and you starve the hope of the saints." When our Lord speaks of God as "My Father and my God," He seems, as usual, to point to the close and intimate union which He always declared to exist between Himself and the First Person in the Trinity. "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:3), is a kindred expression.— He does not, we should observe, say, I ascend unto "our Father," etc., but "my Father and your Father." He thus shows that there is a certain distinction between His relation to the Father and our's. Believers are not naturally sons of God: they only become so by grace, by adoption, and by virtue of union with Christ. Christ, on the contrary, is in His nature the Son of God by an eternal generation. When our Lord speaks of "Your Father and your God," He seems to me to speak with a special view to the consolation of His disciples. It is as though He said, "Do not be troubled because I go away. He to whom I go is your Father and your God as well as mine. All that He is to me, the Head, He is also to you, the members." It may well be doubted, when we read this verse, whether Christians, as a rule, assign sufficient importance to the great truth of Christ's ascension into heaven. Let us never forget that if our Lord had not ascended into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of God, His resurrection would have been of little value. It is His going into heaven itself, to appear in the presence of God for us, that is the great secret of Christian comfort. It is not for nothing that Paul answers the question, "Who is he that condemneth?" by saying, "Christ hath died,— yea, rather hath risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." (Romans 8:34.) The death, the resurrection, the ascension, the intercession of Christ, are four great facts that should never be separated. It ought not to be forgotten that there seems to be a close connection between the ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. This, at least, seems to be the meaning of the text in the Psalms, quoted by Paul: "When He had ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and received gifts for men." (Psalms 68:18. Ephesians 4:8.) v18.—[Mary Magdalene came and told, etc.] In this verse we see the effect that our Lord's words had on the loving disciple to whom He first appeared. She meekly accepts the reproof of her over-forward zeal to touch Him, without gainsaying or answering again. Like a good servant, she proceeds at once to do what she is told. The use of the present tense shows the promptness of her obedience. The Greek words would be more literally rendered, "Mary Magdalene cometh, telling or declaring to the disciples that she has seen the Lord, and that He has said these things to her,"— that He has given her this message to carry to them, and that He calls them His brethren. The use of the participle makes the words sound as if she went open-mouthed, telling every disciple as she went, and hardly stopping to sit down, till she had told every one whom she could find in Jerusalem. We need not doubt that the first house she went to was that where Peter and John lodged, and one of the first persons to whom she told the joyful news was the mother of our Lord. A few minutes after she departed on her joyful errand— running, we need not doubt, as she had run before,— our Lord appeared to the other women, as is recorded by Matthew. (Matthew 28:9.) Brentius remarks what honour this passage puts on women. Sin came into the world by Eve, a woman. Yet God, in mercy, ordered things so that of a woman Christ was born, to a woman Christ first appeared after He rose from the dead, and a woman was the first to carry the news of His resurrection. He quaintly says, "Jesus made Mary Magdalene an Apostle to the Apostles." Cecil remarks, "Singular honour is reserved for solitary faith. Mary has the first personal manifestation of Christ after His resurrection. She is the first witness of this most important and illustrious fact, and the first messenger of it to His disciples." The verses we have now read contain things hard to be understood. Like all the events which followed our Lord's resurrection, there is much in the facts before us which is mysterious, and requires reverent handling. Our Lord's actions, in suddenly appearing among the disciples when the doors were closed, and in breathing upon them, might soon draw us into unprofitable speculation. It is easy, in such cases, to darken counsel by words without knowledge. We shall find it safer and wiser to confine our attention to points which are plain and instructive. We should observe, for one thing, the remarkable language with which our Lord greeted the apostles, when He first met them after His resurrection. Twice over he addressed them with the kindly words, "Peace be unto you." We may dismiss as untenable, in all probability, the cold and cautious suggestion, that this was nothing better than an unmeaning phrase of courtesy. He who "spake as never man spake," said nothing without meaning. He spoke, we may be sure, with special reference to the state of mind of the eleven apostles, with special reference to the events of the last few days, and with special reference to their future ministry. "Peace" and not blame,— "peace" and not fault-finding,— "peace" and not rebuke,— was the first word which this little company heard from their Master's lips, after He left the tomb. It was meet and fitting, that it should be so, and in full harmony with things that had gone before. "Peace on earth" was the song of the heavenly host, when Christ was born. Peace and rest of soul, was the general subject that Christ continually preached for three years. Peace, and not riches, had been the great legacy which He had left with the eleven the night before His crucifixion. Surely it was in full keeping with all the tenor of our Lord's dealings, that, when He revisited His little company of disciples after His resurrection, His first word should be "Peace." It was a word that would soothe and calm their minds. Peace, we may safely conclude, was intended by our Lord to be the key-note to the Christian ministry. That same peace which was so continually on the lips of the Master, was to be the grand subject of the teaching of His disciples. Peace between God and man through the precious blood of atonement,— peace between man and man through the infusion of grace and charity,— to spread such peace as this was to be the work of the Church. Any religion, like that of Mahomet, who made converts with the sword, is not from above, but from beneath. Any form of Christianity which burns men at the stake, in order to promote its own success, carries about with it the stamp of an apostasy. That is the truest and best religion which does most to spread real, true peace. We should observe, for another thing, in these verses, the remarkable evidence which our Lord supplied of His own resurrection. He graciously appealed to the senses of His trembling disciples. He showed them "His hands and His side." He bade them see with their own eyes, that He had a real material body, and that He was not a ghost or a spirit. "Handle Me and see," were His words, according to Luke: "a spirit hath not flesh and bone, as ye see Me have." Great indeed was the condescension of our blessed Master, in thus coming down to the feeble faith of the eleven Apostles! But great also was the principle which He established for the use of His Church in every age, until He returns. That principle is, that our Master requires us to believe nothing that is contrary to our senses. Things above our reason we must expect to find in a religion that comes from God, but not things contrary to reason. Let us lay firm hold on this great principle, and never forget to use it. Specially let us take care that we use it, in estimating the effect of the sacraments and the work of the Holy Ghost. To require people to believe that men have the quickening power of the Holy Spirit, when our eyes tell us they are living in habitual carelessness and sin, or that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are Christ's real body and blood, when our senses tell us they are still bread and wine,— this is to require more belief than Christ ever required of His disciples. It is to require that which is flatly contradictory to reason and common sense. Such requisitions Christ never made. Let us not try to be wiser than our Lord. We should observe, lastly, in these verses, the remarkable commission which our Lord conferred upon His eleven Apostles. We are told that He said, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." It is vain to deny that the true sense of these solemn words has been for centuries a subject of controversy and dispute. It is useless perhaps to expect that the controversy will ever be closed. The utmost that we can hope to do with the passage is to supply a probable exposition. It seems then highly probable that our Lord in this place solemnly commissioned His Apostles to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel as He had preached it. He also conferred on them the power of declaring with peculiar authority whose sins were forgiven, and whose sins were not forgiven. That this is precisely what the Apostles did is a simple matter of fact, which any one may verify for himself by reading the book of the Acts. When Peter proclaimed to the Jews, "Repent ye, and be converted,"— and when Paul declared at Antioch of Iconium,— "to you is the word of this salvation sent,"— "Through this man is preached the forgiveness of sins, and by Him all that believe are justified,"— they were doing what this passage commissioned the Apostles to do. They were opening with authority the door of salvation, and inviting with authority all sinners to enter in by it and be saved. (Acts 3:19; Acts 13:26-38.) It seems, on the other hand, most improbable that our Lord intended in this verse to sanction the practice of private absolution, after private confession of sins. Whatever some may please to say, there is not a single instance to be found in the Acts of any Apostle using such absolution after confession. Above all, there is not a trace in the two pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus, of such confession and absolution being recommended, or thought desirable. In short, whatever men may assert about private ministerial absolution, there is not a single precedent for it in God's Word. Let us leave the whole passage with a deep sense of the importance of the minister's office, when that office is duly exercised according to the mind of Christ. No higher honor can be imagined than that of being Christ's ambassadors, and proclaiming in Christ's name the forgiveness of sins to a lost world. But let us ever beware of investing the ministerial office with one jot more of power and authority than Christ conferred upon it. To treat ministers as being in any sense mediators between God and man, is to rob Christ of His prerogative, to hide saving truth from sinners, and to exalt ordained men to a position which they are totally unqualified to fill. ================== Notes— v19.—[Then the same day at evening, etc.] This verse describes our Lord Jesus Christ's first appearance to the Apostles, in a body, after He rose from the dead. It took place in the evening of the same Sunday when He had appeared to Mary Magdalene in the morning. Between that morning and that evening He had already appeared three times,— once to the company of women returning from the sepulchre, as described by Matthew,— once to Simon Peter, as we are told by Luke and Paul,— and once to the two disciples walking to Emmaus. (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5; Luke 24:13, etc.) This, therefore, was the fifth appearance which our Lord graciously vouchsafed. Each of the five appearances, we should observe, was peculiar in its circumstances, and unlike the others. We need not wonder that this Sunday, from the earliest ages, was always marked by the Church as a day which ought to be had in remembrance, and kept with peculiar honour. The beginning of the verse would be more literally rendered, "When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week." The precise hour is not specified; but, considering all things, it seems probable that it was after sunset, and when it was dark, in order to avoid observation.— The cause of the disciples assembling, we may reasonably suppose, was the tidings received from no less than four distinct sets of witnesses, that Jesus had risen from the dead, and was alive. It would have been strange indeed if they did not assemble on hearing such news.— The place where the disciples assembled is not mentioned. But at a time like the passover feast it would not be difficult to find some "upper room," where ten men might meet together. I can see no improbability in the supposition that the very room where the Lord's Supper was instituted on the previous Thursday evening, might be the same room where the disciples gathered together on Sunday night. The words of Mark incline me to think that the person to whom the "upper room" belonged was one of those Jews who were friendly to Christ, though they had not courage to confess Him openly. (Mark 14:13-15.) That the "doors" should be "shut, where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews," is a circumstance that need not surprise us. The Apostles might well regard their lives as being in imminent danger, when they remembered how their Master had just been treated. Moreover, the story of the guard placed round the sepulchre, that "the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus," might reasonably incline them to expect further ill-treatment themselves. They did their best therefore to avoid observation, and closed the doors of the room where they assembled after sunset. Concerning the precise manner in which our Lord appeared to the disciples, there is no little difference of opinion. (a) Some think, as Calvin, and many of the divines of the seventeenth century, that He suddenly caused the doors to open, passed through them when open, and suddenly stood in the midst of the company assembled. (b) Some think, as Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine, the Romanists, and nearly all Lutherans, that the doors continued fastened, and that our Lord miraculously appeared standing in the room where the disciples were, instantaneously, in a moment, and without notice. I do not know that it signifies much which view we take. In either case a miracle was wrought. Our Lord's risen body must evidently have had a power of moving from one place to another, and of being visible or invisible, as He thought fit, according to His good pleasure, after a manner that we cannot understand. In any case, we must carefully remember that it was a real, material body,— a body that could be touched, and felt, and seen, and handled, and yet a supernatural and peculiar body. With such a body it was as easy for our Lord to appear suddenly standing in the middle of the room, while the doors remained fastened, as it was to open the doors (as He did the doors of Peter's prison), and to walk into the room, like another man. To my own mind there is no proof positive either way, and I must leave it to my readers to choose for themselves. One thing alone we must not forget. Even if our Lord did appear in the room, without unfastening the doors, it is no proof that He can be literally, and locally, and corporally present in the Lord's Supper, under the forms of bread and wine. Moreover, it does not follow, because He could move from place to place invisibly, that His body could ever be in more than one place at one and the same time. When He rose from the dead, He rose with a body of a far more spiritual kind than He had before, but a body for all that which was a real human body, and not a mere seeming and shadowy body, like that of a ghost or a spirit. The first words that our Lord spake to the disciples afford a beautiful proof of His loving, merciful, tender, thoughtful, pitiful, and compassionate spirit. He said, "Peace be unto you." That expression, in my opinion, must on no account be taken as a mere formal salutation, without meaning. It was intended to reassure and cheer the minds of the disciples, by exhibiting at once His mind towards them. Not a word of reproof, or rebuke, or fault-finding, or blame falls from our Lord's lips, notwithstanding all their sad faint-heartedness and desertion on the preceding Thursday night. All is forgiven and forgotten. The very first word is "Peace." This was almost the last word that our Lord had spoken on Thursday night before He prayed: "These things I have spoken, that in Me ye might have peace." (John 16:33.) This was the last legacy He had left His disciples: "Peace I leave with you: my peace I give unto you. Let not your hearts be troubled." (John 14:27.) Can we doubt that this comfortable word would cheer and calm the minds of the little company, when our Lord suddenly appeared?— "Once more I stand among you: and once more I proclaim peace;— not excommunication, not rejection from my friendship, not rebuke, but peace." We cannot realize the fulness of comfort which the word would supply, unless we bear in mind the events of the last few days, and especially the conduct of the Apostles on the night before the crucifixion, when, after loudly professing their faithfulness, they all "forsook Him and fled." The parallel account in Luke would lead us to conclude that there were others present on this occasion beside the Apostles. He speaks of "Them that were with them." (Luke 24:33.) v20.—[And when He had so said, etc.] After speaking, our Lord proceeded most graciously to supply tangible evidence that He had really risen from the dead, and stood before His disciples with a material living body. When it says He "showed them His hands and side," we cannot doubt that He bade them touch Him. In fact Luke, when describing this very same interview, expressly records that our Lord said, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have." (Luke 24:39.) The mention of the "hands and side" points clearly to the wounds made by the nails on the one, and by the spear in the other. Those wounds appeared visibly and unmistakably in His risen body, and our blessed Master was not ashamed of them. Even in the glory of heaven, according to Revelation, John saw Him appear as a "Lamb that had been slain." (Revelation 5:6.) I think we need not doubt that when He ascended up into heaven, those wounds went with Him, and are a perpetual witness to angels that He has actually suffered for man's sins. When we see His real presence in the day of His appearing, we shall see "the man Christ Jesus," and see the marks of His crucifixion. I give this however as my private opinion, and I think it fair to say that many divines think differently. For instance, Calvin strongly holds that our Lord's "use of the wounds was only temporary, until the Apostles were fully convinced, and that His glorified body is without them." I cannot, however, agree with him. After a great victory, the scars of a conqueror are marks of honour. Concerning the actual condition of our Lord's wounds it becomes us to speak reverently. A very slight acquaintance with surgery will tell us, of course, that a lacerated wound in the hand or foot, or a deep wound in the side inflicted on Friday, would naturally, to say the least, be very painful and inflamed on Sunday night. But we must carefully remember that our Lord's risen body, though a real and material body, was evidently not subject to all the conditions of an ordinary human body, or of His own body before His death. It was in fact such a body as we may hope to have when we rise again. We may, therefore, conclude that the wounds made by the nails and spear were not wounds that were sore and inflamed, though it is equally certain that they were not closed up, and only scars left behind. How it was that the two disciples going to Emmaus did not recognize our Lord by the wounds in His hands and feet, is a question that admits of two answers. Either we must suppose that "their eyes were holden," and that they were miraculously unable to discern who it was that walked with them, and did not even know Him by His voice; or else we must suppose that our Lord's hands and feet were covered during the walk, and that they only saw the wounds in His hands when He broke the bread. Mark's account would lead us to believe that our Lord was pleased to assume another body on the way to Emmaus. He says, "He appeared in another form." (Mark 16:12.) The expression "were glad when they saw," would be more literally rendered "rejoiced seeing," and "having seen." I cannot myself think that these words fulfilled our Lord's saying, "I will see you again, and jour heart shall rejoice." (John 16:22.) That joy, I believe, is the joy of the whole Church at the Lord's second advent, and is yet to come. It is a joy of which our Lord said, "No man taketh it from you." I believe the phrase before us simply means that the disciples were greatly delighted and rejoiced, when they saw before them their risen Master. It relieved their anxious minds, revived their hopes, and set at rest all their fears. "Our Master is actually alive again and has overcome death. Now all will be right." We should not fail to observe how our Lord condescended to satisfy the senses of His disciples,— the sense of sight, and the sense of touch,— when He showed Himself to them after His resurrection. If their senses had contradicted the news that His body had risen again to life, He would not have required them to believe it. Things above reason and sense the Gospel calls on us to believe often, things contrary to reason and sense never. This is precisely what we should remember when a Romanist bids us believe that the consecrated wafer in the Lord's Supper is the real Body of Christ. Sense, sight, taste, and chemical analysis, combine to tell us that the wafer is still bread. The Romanist, therefore, has no right to demand our belief. Rollock remarks, "When I mark this place, I see in it what then shall be the estate of the godly, when they shall meet with their Lord. The first sight shall so ravish them, that they shall wonder there ever could be such glory." v21.—[Then said Jesus...again...etc.] In this verse our Lord proceeds to tell the disciples the work which He now wished them to do, but in general terms. He meant to send them forth into the world to be His ministers, messengers, and witnesses, even as the Father had sent Him into the world to be His messenger and witness. (Hebrews 3:1; John 18:37.) As He had gone up and down preaching the Gospel, testifying against the evil of the world, and proclaiming rest and peace to the heavy laden, so He intended them to go up and down, as soon as He had ascended up into heaven. In short, He at once prepared their minds for the work which was before them. They were to dismiss from their minds the idea that the day of ease and reward had come, now that their Master had risen and was with them once more. So far from that being the case, their real work was now to begin. He Himself was about to leave the world, and He meant them to take His place. And one purpose for which He appeared among them was to give them their commission. The repetition of the salutation, "Peace be unto you," is very noteworthy. I cannot doubt that it was specially intended to cheer, and comfort, and animate the disciples. Glad as they doubtless were to see the Lord, we may easily believe that they were frightened, and overcome by a mixture of feelings; and the more so when they remembered how they had behaved when they had last seen their Lord. Jesus read the condition of their hearts, and mercifully makes assurance doubly sure by repeating the gracious words, "Peace be unto you." As Joseph said to Pharaoh, "the thing was doubled," in order to make it sure and prevent the possibility of mistake. Augustine says, "The iteration is confirmation. It is the 'peace upon peace' promised by the prophet." (Isaiah 57:19.) It is curious that two entirely different Greek words are used to express the English "sent" and "send" in this verse. Parkhurst says that the word used where our Lord says "My Father hath sent Me," is a more solemn word than the one used when our Lord says, "I send you." Yet I do not think this is proved; and certainly Liddell and Scott flatly contradict the idea. At any rate the second or less solemn word is repeatedly used in Luke in the most solemn sense. (John 5:23-24, John 5:30.) It is just one of those things which we ought to notice, but cannot explain. There is doubtless some reason why two words are used, but what it is has not yet been discovered. v22.—[And when He had said....breathed, etc.] In this verse our Lord proceeds to confer a special gift on the disciples, and, as it were, to ordain them for the great work which He intended them to do. And we have in it a remarkable emblematical action, and a no less remarkable saying. The action of our Lord, "He breathed on them," is one that stands completely alone in the New Testament, and the Greek word is nowhere else used. On no occasion but this do we find the Lord "breathing" on any one. Of course it was a symbolical action, and the only question is, What did it symbolize? and Why was it used? My own belief is that the true explanation is to be found in the account of man's creation in Genesis. There we read, "The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7.) Just as there was no life in man until God breathed into him the breath of life, so I believe our Lord taught the disciples, by this action of breathing on them, that the beginning of all ministerial qualification is to have the Holy Spirit breathed into us; and that, until the Holy Ghost is planted in our hearts, we are not rightly commissioned for the work of the ministry. I do not however feel sure that this view completely exhausts the meaning of our Lord when He breathed on the disciples. I cannot forget that they had all forsaken their Master the night that He was taken prisoner, fallen away from their profession, and forfeited their title to confidence as Apostles. May we not therefore reasonably believe that this breathing pointed to a revival of life in the hearts of the Apostles, and to a restoration of their privileges as trusted and commissioned messengers, notwithstanding their grievous fall?— I cannot help suspecting that this lesson was contained in the action of breathing. It not only symbolized the infusion for the first time of special ministerial gifts and graces. It also symbolized the restoration to complete power and confidence in their Master's eyes, even after their faith had so nearly breathed its last, and given up the ghost. The first symptom of returning life, when a man is recovered from drowning, is his beginning to breathe again. To set the lungs breathing, in such cases, is the first aim of a skilful doctor. When we remember that the wind is pre-eminently an emblem of the Holy Ghost (John 3:8; Ezekiel 37:9; Acts 2:2), we cannot fail to see that there is a beautiful fitness in the symbolical action which our Lord has employed. Lampe thinks that our Lord breathed on all the disciples at once, and not on each separately. It is probable that it was so, in my judgment. Hooker remarks (Eccles. Pol. 6, v. c. 77), "The cause why we breathe not, as Christ did on the disciples unto whom He imparted power, is that neither Spirit nor spiritual authority may be thought to proceed from us, who are but delegates and assigns to give men possession of His grace." The words, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," are almost as deep and mysterious as the action of breathing. They can only signify, "I bestow on you the Holy Ghost." But in what sense the Holy Ghost was bestowed, is a point that demands attention, and we must beware that we do not run into error. (a) Our Lord cannot have meant that the disciples were now to "receive the Holy Ghost" for the first time. They had doubtless received Him in the day when they were first converted and believed. Whether they realized it or not, the Holy Ghost was in their hearts already. "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1 Corinthians 12:3.) (b) Our Lord cannot have meant that the disciples were now to "receive the Holy Ghost," for the purpose of working miracles and speaking with tongues. They had worked many miracles already, and the gift of speaking with tongues was specially conferred afterwards, on the day of Pentecost, when they were endued with power from on high. (c) Our Lord, in my opinion, must have meant, "Receive the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of knowledge and understanding." He must have meant that He now conferred on them a degree of light and knowledge of divine truth, which hitherto they had not possessed. They had been greatly deficient in light and knowledge up to this time. With all their faith and love towards our Lord's Person, they had been sadly ignorant of many things, and particularly of the true purpose of His coming, and the necessity of His death and resurrection.— "Now," says our Lord, "I bestow on you the Spirit of knowledge. Let the time past suffice to have seen through a glass darkly. Receive the Holy Ghost, open your eyes, and see all things clearly."— In fact I believe the words point to the very thing which Luke says our Lord did on this occasion: "then opened He their understanding that they might under stand the Scriptures." (Luke 24:45.) Light was the first thing made in the day of creation. Light in the heart is the first beginning of true conversion. And light in the understanding is the first thing required in order to make a man an able minister of the New Testament. Our Lord was commissioning His first ministers, and sending them out to carry on His work. He begins by giving them light and knowledge:— "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. I commission you this day, and confer on you the office of ministers. And the first gift I confer on you is spiritual knowledge." That this is the true view of the words, is proved to my own mind by the extraordinary difference in doctrinal knowledge which from this day the Apostles exhibited. Theophylact thinks that our Lord only meant, "Become fit for receiving the Holy Ghost." This seems weak and poor. The expression before us is one of those which seem to me to supply strong indirect proof of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, as well as from the Father. It seems to me that when the Lord Jesus Christ could say with authority, "Receive the Holy Ghost," it is very strange to say that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from Him! Yet the Greek Church does not admit this. The expression before us is one, which, strictly speaking, no one but our Lord Jesus Christ could use. It is evident that no mortal man has the power of conferring the Holy Ghost upon another. This is a prerogative of God alone and of His Christ. When, therefore, the ordination service for Presbyters, in the Church of England Prayer-book, puts into the Bishop's mouth these solemn words, "Receive the Holy Ghost," I have never felt a doubt that the compilers of our Liturgy only meant the words to be used as in an optative, and not a positive sense, as a prayer: "I pray that thou mayest receive the Holy Ghost."— Archbishop Whitgift, in his Reply to the objections of the famous Cartwright, says, "To use these words in ordaining of ministers, which Christ Himself used in appointing His Apostles, is no more ridiculous and blasphemous than it is to use the words that He used in the Lord's Supper."— "The Bishop, by speaking these words, doth not take upon him to give the Holy Ghost, no more than he doth to remit sins, when he pronounceth the remission of sins; but by speaking these words of Christ, he doth show the principal duty of a minister, and assureth him of the assistance of God's Holy Spirit, if he labour in the same accordingly." (See Blakeney on the Common-Prayer, p. 513.) While, however, I say this, I shall never shrink from expressing my regret that the words, "Receive the Holy Ghost," were adopted by the compilers of our Prayer-book. They do not trouble my conscience, but I consider them likely to offend the consciences of many, and I think it would have been wiser to throw them distinctly and unmistakably into the form of a prayer. It is a simple historical fact which ought not to be forgotten, that these words were never used, in the ordination of ministers, for more than a thousand years after Christ! (See Nicholls and Blakeney on the Common-Prayer.) One practical lesson, at any rate, is very plain in this expression. The first thing that is necessary, in order to make a man a true minister of the Gospel, is the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Bishops and presbyters can lay hands on men, and make them clergymen. The Holy Ghost alone can make a "man of God," and a minister of God's Word. v23.—[Whose soever sins ye remit, etc.] In this verse our Lord continues and concludes the commission for the office of ministers, which He now gives to His Apostles after rising from the dead. His work as a public Teacher was now finished. The Apostles henceforth were to carry it on.— The words which form this commission are very peculiar, and demand close attention. The meaning of the words, I believe, may be paraphrased thus: "I confer on you the power of declaring and pronouncing authoritatively whose sins are forgiven, and whose sins are not forgiven. I bestow on you the office of pronouncing who are pardoned, and who are not, just as the Jewish high priest pronounced who were clean, and who were unclean, in cases of leprosy."— I believe that nothing more than this authority to declare can be got out of the words, and I entirely repudiate and reject the strange notion maintained by some, that our Lord meant to depute to the Apostles, or any others, the power of absolutely pardoning or not pardoning, absolving or not absolving, any one's soul. My reasons for maintaining this view of the text are as follows. (a) The power of forgiving sins, in Scripture, is always spoken of as the special prerogative of God. The Jews themselves admitted this, when they said, "Who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7, Luke 5:21.) It is monstrous to suppose that our Lord meant to overthrow and alter this great principle when He commissioned His disciples. (b) The language of the Old Testament Scripture shows conclusively, that the Prophets were said to "DO" things, when they " them about to be done." Thus Jeremiah's commission runs in these words, "I have this day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant." (Jeremiah 1:10.) This can only mean to declare the rooting out and pulling down, etc.— So also Ezekiel says, "I came to destroy the city" (Ezekiel 43:3); where the marginal reading is, "I came to prophesy the city should be destroyed." The Apostles were doubtless well acquainted with prophetical language, and I believe they interpreted our Lord's words in this place accordingly. (c) There is not a single instance in the Acts or Epistles, of an Apostle taking on himself to absolve, pardon, or forgive any one. The Apostles and preachers of the New Testament declare in the plainest language whose sin is pardoned and absolved, but they never take on themselves to pardon and absolve. When Peter said to Cornelius and his friends, "Whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43); when Paul said at Antioch, in Pisidia, "We declare unto you glad tidings;" "Through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 13:32, Acts 13:38); and when Paul said to the Philippian jailor, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31),— in each case they fulfilled the commission of the text before us. They "declared whose sins were remitted, and whose were retained." (d) There is not a single word in the three pastoral Epistles, written by Paul to Timothy and Titus, to show that the Apostle regarded absolution as part of the ministerial office. If it was he would surely have mentioned it, and urged the practice of it on young ministers, for the relief of burdened souls. (e) The weakness of human nature is so great, that it is grossly improbable that such a tremendous power as that of absolutely pardoning and absolving souls, would ever be committed to any mortal man. It would be highly injurious to any man to trust him with such a power, and would be a continued temptation to him to usurp the office of a Mediator between God and man. (f) The experience of the Romish Church, in which the priests are practically regarded as having the power to absolve sinners, and shut heaven against persons not absolved, affords the strongest indirect evidence that our Lord's words can only have been meant to bear a "declarative" sense. Anything worse or more mischievous, both to minister and people, than the results of the Romish system of penance and absolution, it is impossible to conceive. It is a system which has practically degraded the laity, puffed up and damaged the clergy, turned people away from Christ, and kept them in spiritual darkness and bondage. A question of no small interest arises out of the text before us, which it may be well to consider. Was the ministerial office and commission conferred on the Apostles by our Lord in this place an office which they transmitted to others, with all its privileges and powers? I answer, without hesitation, that in the strictest sense the commission of the Apostles was not transmitted, but was confined to them and Paul. I challenge any one to deny that the Apostles possessed certain ministerial qualifications which were quite peculiar to them, and which they could not transmit, and did not transmit to others. (1) They had the gift of declaring the Gospel without error, and with infallible accuracy, to an extent that no one after them did. (2) They confirmed their teaching by miracles. (3) They were, some of them, plenarily inspired by the Holy Ghost to write portions of the New Testament. (4) They had the power of discerning spirits, and knowing the hearts of others to an extent that no one after them possessed, as we see in the case of Peter's dealing with Ananias, Sapphira, and Simon Magus. In all these respects they stood alone, and had no successors. In the strictest sense there is no such thing as Apostolical succession. Modern ministers are not successors of the Apostles, but of Timothy and Titus. The Apostles were peculiarly qualified, and gifted, and furnished for the very peculiar work they had to do, as the first founders of Churches. But, in the strictest and most accurate sense, their office was one which was not transmitted. With them it began, and with them it ended. But while I say all this, I maintain as strongly as any one, that there is a sense in which the verse now before us applies to all Christian ministers, and in this sense their commission resembles that of the Apostles. It is the office of every minister of Christ to declare boldly, authoritatively, and with decision, out of God's Word, who they are whose sins are forgiven, and who they are whose sins are retained. This is his commission, and this the work for which he is set apart and ordained. Whenever a minister in his pulpit proclaims the full Gospel of Christ faithfully, he does the work which our Lord in this verse commissioned the Apostles to do, and may take comfort in the thought that he may expect our Lord's blessing. He cannot do it with such infallible power as the Apostles, but in a sense he is really their follower and successor. The whole subject opened up in this verse is so important in modern days, that I make no apology for quoting the following passage from Bishop Jewell's Apology, which throws light on it.— Jewell says, "We say, that Christ has given to His ministers the power of binding and loosing, of opening and shutting. And we say, that the power of loosing consists in this, that the minister, by the preaching of the Gospel, offers to dejected minds and true penitents, through the merits of Christ, absolution, and doth assure them a certain remission of their sins, and the hopes of eternal salvation; or, secondly, reconciles, restores, and receives into the congregation and unity of the faithful, those penitents, who by any grievous scandal or known and public offence have offended the minds of their brethren, and, in a sort alienated and separated themselves from the common society of the Church and the body of Christ. And we say the minister doth exercise the power of binding or shutting, when he shutteth the gate of the kingdom of heaven against unbelievers and obstinate persons, and denounceth to them the vengeance of God and eternal punishment; or excludeth out of the bosom of the Church, those that are publicly excommunicated; and that God Himself doth so far approve whatever sentence His ministers shall so give, that whatsoever is either loosed or bound by their ministry here on earth, He will in like manner bind or loose and confirm in heaven. The key with which these ministers do shut or open the kingdom of heaven, we say, with Chrysostom, is the knowledge of the Scripture; with Tertullian, is the interpretation of the law; and with Eusebius, is the Word of God. We say the disciples of Christ received this power (from Him) not that they might hear the private confessions of the people, and catch their whispering murmurs, as the Popish priests everywhere now do, and that in such a manner as if all the force and use of the keys consisted only in this; but that they might go and preach and publish the Gospel, that so they might be a savour of life unto life, to them that did believe; and that they might be also a savour of death unto death, to those that did not believe; that the minds of those who were affrighted with the sense of their former ill lives and errors, after they beheld the light of the Gospel, and believed in Christ, might be opened by the Word of God, as doors are with a key: and that the wicked and stubborn, who would not believe and return into the way, might be left, shut up, and locked, and, as Paul expresseth it (2 Timothy 3:13), might "wax worse and worse." This we take to be the meaning of the keys, and that in this manner the consciences of men are either bound or loosed." Calvin observes, "When Christ enjoins the Apostles to forgive sins, He does not convey to them what is peculiar to Himself. It belongs to Him to forgive sins. This honour, so far as it belongs peculiarly to Himself, He does not surrender to the Apostles. He only enjoins them, in His name, to proclaim the forgiveness of sins, that through their agency He may reconcile men to God." Brentius says, "This is the true and heavenly mode of remitting sins: to wit, the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who do not preach the Gospel of Christ have no power of either remitting or retaining sins." Bullinger says, "The Apostles remitted men's sins, when by the preaching of the Gospel they taught that the sins of believers were remitted, and eternal life granted through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They retained men's sins when they announced that the wrath of God remained on those who believed not." Gualter says, "At this day ministers are said to remit sins when they promise remission of them in Christ to those who believe, and to retain sins when they denounce damnation on the unbelieving and obstinately impenitent." Musculus says that this promise does not belong "to every and any minister, but to the real minister of the Gospel, who teaches nothing, promises nothing else but this,— that those who repent and believe on Christ have remission of sin and eternal life, and that those who are impenitent and unbelieving remain in their sins and death. Doctrine like this is ratified and confirmed before God, because it is agreeable to the Gospel of the Son of God." Lightfoot thinks that, in interpreting these words, we must carefully remember that they were probably spoken in close connection with our Lord's words in Luke, when He says that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24:47.) He thinks that on hearing these words, scruples might arise in the Apostles' minds: "Is this so indeed? Must remission of sin be really preached in Jerusalem to men stained with Messiah's blood?" And then he thinks these words are spoken to encourage them. "Yes: you are to begin at Jerusalem. For whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them." Finally, Lightfoot asks, with much sense, "On what foundation and with what confidence could the Apostles have preached remission of sins to such wretched men as the murderers of their Lord, unless authorized by a peculiar commission granted by the Lord Himself?" Poole says, "The question among divines is whether Christ in this text has given authority to His ministers actually to discharge men of the guilt of their sins; or only to declare to them that if their repentance and faith be true, their sins are really forgiven. The former view is contended for by many. But it does not seem reasonable (1) that God should betrust man with such a piece of His prerogative; and (2) that God who knoweth the falsehood of men's hearts, and the inability of the best minister to judge of the truth of any man's repentance and faith, as also the passions to which they are subject, should give to any of the sons of men an absolute power under Him to discharge any from the guilt of sin. Certain it is that without true repentance and faith in Christ no man hath his sins forgiven; so that no minister, who knoweth not the hearts of men, can possibly say to any man with certainty, Thy sins are forgiven. What certainty the Apostles might have had by the Spirit of discernment, we cannot say. But certain it is, that none hath now such certainty of any man's faith and repentance. Hence it is to me apparent, that no man hath any further power from Christ than to declare to men, that if they truly repent and believe, their sins are really forgiven. Only the minister, being Christ's interpreter and ambassador, and better able to judge of true faith and repentance than others (though not certainly and infallibly), such declarations from a faithful, able minister are of more weight and authority than from others. This is the most, I conceive, should be in this matter." I leave the whole passage with one general word of caution. Whatever sense we place on the words, let us beware that we do not give to ministers, of any name or denomination, a place, power, authority, position, or privilege, which Christ never gave them. Putting ministers out of their proper place has been the root of endless superstition and corruption in Christ's Church. To regard ministers as mediators between Christ and the soul, to confess to them privately and receive private absolution from them, is a system for which there is no authority in the New Testament, and the high road to every kind of evil. It is a system equally mischievous to ministers and to people, utterly subversive of the Gospel, and thoroughly dishonouring to the priestly office of Christ. The three absolutions found in the Liturgy of the Church of England, (1) that in the Morning and Evening Prayer, (2) that in the Communion Service, and (3) that in the Visitation for the Sick, were all, in my judgment, intended to bear only a declarative sense. But I can never refrain from saying that the absolution in the Visitation Service is liable to be misunderstood, and its wording is to be regretted. Shepherd, on the Common Prayer, remarks, "The Church of England neither maintains nor countenances the opinion, that a priest, by virtue of his ordination, has an absolute, unconditional power to forgive sin. The power that the clergy have received and exercised, is purely ministerial, being defined and limited by the "Word of God, which expressly declares upon what condition sin shall be remitted, and upon what retained. To suppose that any minister of Christ, since the Apostles, possesses the power of remitting or retaining sin at his discretion, is repugnant to the whole tenor of Scripture, as well as to every dictate of reason and common sense." The story of the unbelief of Thomas, related in these verses, is a narrative peculiar to the Gospel of John. For wise and good reasons it is passed over in silence by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and was probably not given to the world till Thomas was dead. It is precisely one of those passages of Scripture which supply strong internal evidence of the honesty of the inspired writers. If impostors and deceivers had compiled the Bible for their own private advantage, they would never have told mankind that one of the first founders of a new religion behaved as Thomas here did. We should mark, for one thing, in these verses, how much Christians may lose by not regularly attending the assemblies of God's people. Thomas was absent the first time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after His resurrection, and consequently Thomas missed a blessing. Of course we have no certain proof that the absence of the Apostle could not admit of explanation. Yet, at such a crisis in the lives of the eleven, it seems highly improbable that he had any good reason for not being with his brethren, and it is far more likely that in some way he was to blame. One thing, at any rate, is clear and plain. By being absent he was kept in suspense and unbelief a whole week, while all around him were rejoicing in the thought of a risen Lord. It is difficult to suppose that this would have been the case, if there had not been a fault somewhere. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that Thomas was absent when he might have been present. We shall all do well to remember the charge of the Apostle Paul: "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is." (Hebrews 10:25.) Never to be absent from God's house on Sundays, without good reason,— never to miss the Lord's Supper when administered in our own congregation,— never to let our place be empty when means of grace are going on, this is one way to be a growing and prosperous Christian. The very sermon that we needlessly miss, may contain a precious word in season for our souls. The very assembly for prayer and praise from which we stay away, may be the very gathering that would have cheered, and stablished, and quickened our hearts. We little know how dependent our spiritual health is on little, regular, habitual helps, and how much we suffer if we miss our medicine. The wretched argument that many attend means of grace and are no better for them, should be no argument to a Christian. It may satisfy those who are blind to their own state, and destitute of grace, but it should never satisfy a real servant of Christ. Such an one should remember the words of Solomon: "Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors." (Proverbs 8:34.) Above all he should bind around his heart the Master's promise: "Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20.) Such a man will rarely be left like Thomas, shut out in the cold chill of unbelief, while others are warmed and filled. We should mark for another thing in this verse, how kind and merciful Christ is to dull and slow believers. Nowhere, perhaps, in all the four Gospels, do we find this part of our Lord's character so beautifully illustrated as in the story before our eyes. It is hard to imagine anything more tiresome and provoking than the conduct of Thomas, when even the testimony of ten faithful brethren had no effect on him, and he doggedly declared, "Except I see with my own eyes and touch with my own hands, I will not believe." But it is impossible to imagine anything more patient and compassionate, than our Lord's treatment of this weak disciple. He does not reject him, or dismiss him, or excommunicate him. He comes again at the end of a week, and apparently for the special benefit of Thomas. He deals with him according to his weakness, like a gentle nurse dealing with a froward child:— "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side." If nothing but the grossest, coarsest, most material evidence could satisfy him, even that evidence was supplied. Surely this was a love that passeth knowledge, and a patience that passeth understanding. A passage of Scripture like this, we need not doubt, was written for the special comfort of all true believers. The Holy Ghost knew well that the dull, and the slow, and the stupid, and the doubting, are by far the commonest type of disciples in this evil world. The Holy Ghost has taken care to supply abundant evidence that Jesus is rich in patience as well as compassion, and that He bears with the infirmities of all His people. Let us take care that we drink into our Lord's spirit, and copy His example. Let us never set down men in a low place, as graceless and godless, because their faith is feeble and their love is cold. Let us remember the case of Thomas, and be very pitiful and of tender mercy. Our Lord has many weak children in His family, many dull pupils in His school, many raw soldiers in His army, many lame sheep in His flock. Yet He bears with them all, and casts none away. Happy is that Christian who has learned to deal likewise with his brethren. There are many in the Church, who, like Thomas, are dull and slow, but for all that, like Thomas, are real and true believers. We should mark, lastly, in these verses, how Christ was addressed by a disciple as "God," without prohibition or rebuke on His part. The noble exclamation which burst from the lips of Thomas, when convinced that his Lord had risen indeed,— the noble exclamation, "My Lord and my God,"— admits of only one meaning. It was a distinct testimony to our blessed Lord's divinity. It was a clear, unmistakable declaration that Thomas believed Him, whom he saw and touched that day, to be not only man, but God. Above all, it was a testimony which our Lord received and did not prohibit, and a declaration which He did not say one word to rebuke. When Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter and would have worshiped him, the Apostle refused such honor at once: "Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts 10:26.) When the people of Lystra would have done sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas, "they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you." (Acts 14:14-15.) But when Thomas says to Jesus, "My Lord and my God," the words do not elicit a syllable of reproof from our holy and truth-loving Master. Can we doubt that these things were written for our learning? Let us settle it firmly in our minds that the divinity of Christ is one of the grand foundation truths of Christianity, and let us be willing to go to the stake rather than let it go. Unless our Lord Jesus is very God of very God, there is an end of His mediation, His atonement, His advocacy, His priesthood, His whole work of redemption. These glorious doctrines are useless blasphemies, unless Christ is divine. Forever let us bless God that the divinity of our Lord is taught everywhere in the Scriptures, and stands on evidence that can never be overthrown. Above all, let us daily repose our sinful souls on Christ with undoubting confidence, as one who is perfect God as well as perfect man. He is man, and therefore can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He is God, and therefore is "able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him." That Christian has no cause to fear, who can look to Jesus by faith, and say with Thomas, "My Lord and my God." With such a Savior we need not be afraid to begin the life of real religion, and with such a Savior we may boldly go on. ================== Notes— v24.—[But Thomas one...twelve...Didymus.] The story of the second appearance of Christ to the whole company of the Apostles, for the special benefit of Thomas, is one of those narratives which are only found in John's Gospel. We ought to feel thankful that it has been recorded. It is precisely one of those stories, which supply strong indirect evidence of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures and the genuine honesty of the Gospel writers. An uninspired man, much less a dishonest impostor, would not have told us of the unbelief of a chosen Apostle. Moreover it is one of those stories which throw most useful light on a very interesting subject. That subject is the great variety of temperament which may be found among true Christians. Chrysostom remarks, "Observe the truthfulness of the disciples. They hide no faults, either their own or others; but record them with great veracity." Cardinal Bellarmine, according to Gerhard, goes so far as to say that the history of Thomas, like that of Noah's drunkenness, David's adultery, and Peter's denial, is a reason why the laity ought not to read the Bible, lest forsooth they should get harm! The worthy Cardinal forgets that we need beacons to warn us against danger, and examples of Christ's mercy to sinful and dull people in order to encourage us to repent. Concerning the Apostle Thomas we know little. Twice in the Gospel of John we find him saying something, and on each occasion he appears in the same character. When our Lord declared his intention of going to Bethany, and says plainly that Lazarus is dead, Thomas says to his fellow-disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with Him." (John 11:16.) When our Lord in His parting address to His disciples said, "Whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, we know not whither Thou goest; and how can we know the way?" (John 14:4-5.) He always seems to be one of those desponding, fearful, gloomy-minded Christians, who look at the dark side of every subject and condition, and can never see a bit of blue sky,— who go on their way to heaven with real faith and true grace, but are so full of doubts and fears that they are unable to enjoy religion, and are a trouble to themselves and all around them. This I believe to be the true account of his character. The modern theory that he was a man of free thought and wide range of intellect, who wisely required reasonable evidence of everything in religion, and properly dreaded taking anything on trust, is a theory which I believe to be utterly without foundation, and I cannot receive it for a moment. He was simply a good man with a very doubting and gloomy turn of mind;— a man that really loved Jesus and was willing to die with Him, but a man who saw little but the dangers attending everything that a disciple had to do, and the difficulties belonging to everything which a disciple had to believe. There are many like him. It is a very useful picture. John Bunyan's "Fearing," "Despondency," and "Much afraid," in Pilgrim's Progress, are types of a large class of Christians, who are successors of the Apostle Thomas. [Was not with them...Jesus came.] The reasons why Thomas was not with the other ten Apostles on the Sunday night when Jesus appeared to them are not given, and we have no clue whatever to them. Most commentators consider that he was to blame; and that by his absence he missed a blessing, and was kept in suspense a week. I admit that this may be true, and I think his example teaches indirectly that it is unwise to be ever absent from the assembly of God's people without good cause. But I believe we must not press this point too far, and must not lay too much blame on the Apostle, in the absence of direct evidence that he was in fault. For anything we know, he may have lodged at a greater distance from the place of meeting than any of the eleven, and thus been unable to reach the place at an earlier hour; or he may have been detained by necessary business. One thing is very certain: the disciples found no fault with Thomas for his absence when they said, "We have seen the Lord." Moreover, our Lord Himself, when He appears, does not blame Thomas for having been absent on a former occasion, but only chides his unbelief. The simplest view of the subject appears to me to be, that Thomas's absence was a part of his character. He was slow and dull in action as well as in perception,— the sort of man who would always have been last in Church, and last in a meeting. In the present instance I venture to conjecture that he meant no harm, and intended to have been present when the ten Apostles met; but that he probably started late, walked slow, and was so absorbed in doubts, and fears, and anxious meditations about the prospects of Christ's disciples, that he never reached the place of meeting till Christ had withdrawn Himself. The question has been needlessly raised by some, whether Thomas was not deprived of the gifts and privileges conferred on the other Apostles by his absence. Lightfoot sensibly replies, "Surely not: it was a privilege common to the whole Apostolate, and peculiar to them as Apostles. Paul was distant, while these things happened, both from apostleship and religion. Yet, when made an Apostle, he was at once adorned with this privilege." Some think that his case is like Eldad and Medad, who had their share of the Spirit, though absent, like the rest of the seventy elders. (Numbers 11:27.) v25.—[The other disciples...said...seen the Lord.] We are not told when and where the disciples said this. I incline to believe that they said it the very evening that our Lord first appeared to them, and that Thomas came into the assembly very shortly after the Lord disappeared. To my eyes it reads as if the ten Apostles all exclaimed together, full of joy and delight at what they had seen and heard, "Thomas, we have just seen our Lord and Master! If you had been here a little sooner, you also would have seen Him." I think this for two reasons. (a) The words of the twenty-sixth verse, "after eight days," seem to indicate that there were eight days between our Lord's first appearance and his second, and also eight days between Thomas's expression of unbelief and his being convinced. (b) It seems highly improbable that Thomas would allow a whole day and night to pass away, after the rumour of our Lord's body having been removed from the sepulchre had spread through Jerusalem, without seeking out the other Apostles and inquiring what it meant. Slow and dull in faith as he was, he would hardly sleep without finding out something about it. These considerations incline me to believe, that before the ten Apostles had time to separate, after our Lord's appearance to them, Thomas came in. Then they told him immediately, that they had just seen the Lord. And then came the remarkable declaration which the doubting Apostle made. [But he said unto them, Except, etc.] The unbelief of Thomas, expressed in this famous sentence, was a sad fault in a good man, which cannot be explained away. He refused to believe the testimony of ten competent witnesses, who had seen Christ in the body with their own eyes. He refused to believe the testimony of ten true friends and brethren, who could have no object in deceiving him. He passionately declares that he will not believe, unless he himself sees and touches our Lord's body. He presumes to prescribe certain conditions, which must be fulfilled before he can credit the report of his brethren. He uses singularly emphatic language to express his scepticism:— "Others may believe if they like; but I shall not and will not believe until I see and touch for myself."— All this was very sad and very sinful. Thomas might have remembered that at this rate nothing could ever be proved by witnesses; and that he himself, as a teacher, could never expect men to believe him. His case shows us how foolishly and weakly a believer may speak sometimes, and how, under the influence of depression and doubt, he may say things of which afterwards he is heartily ashamed. After all, the case of Thomas is not an uncommon one. Some people are so strangely constituted that they distrust everybody, regard all men as liars, and will believe nothing except they can see it all, and work it all out for themselves. They have a rooted dislike to receive anything on trust, or from the testimony of others, and must always go over the ground for themselves. In people of this kind, though they know it not, there is often a vast amount of latent pride and self-conceit; and it is almost ludicrous to observe how entirely they forget that the business of daily life could never go on, if we were always doubting everything which we could not see for ourselves. Nevertheless they exist in the Church, and always will exist; and the case of Thomas shows what trouble they bring on themselves. Two things must, in fairness, be remembered, which form some slight extenuation of Thomas's unbelief. For one thing it does not appear that any one of our Lord's Apostles ever understood, up to the time of our Lord's crucifixion, that He was really going to be crucified, buried, and rise again. Simple as these great facts appear to us now, it is perfectly certain that they formed no part of the creed of the Apostles, so long as our Lord was with them. This may seem astonishing, but it is true. They believed that Christ was the Messiah, but they did not realize a crucified Messiah. Of these Apostles, I would remind the reader, Thomas was one. Does not all this throw a little light on his extraordinary scepticism about the reality of the resurrection? For another thing we must remember, that Thomas, like all Jews, had a firm belief in the reality of spirits and ghosts, and the possibility of their appearing. Even after this, when Peter was delivered from prison, and came to the house of John surnamed Mark, the disciples said, "It is his angel." (Acts 12:15.) May we not therefore conceive it possible that Thomas, overwhelmed and confounded at the astounding news that Christ had been seen, would cling, with his characteristic incredulity, to the notion that the Apostles had only seen Christ's spirit or ghost? That they had seen something he did not dispute, but that what they had seen was the real material body of his Lord, he could not bring himself to believe. These things are worth considering. I do not for a moment excuse or defend Thomas. I only remind those who condemn him wholesale, and can find no words strong enough to use about his unbelief, that it was not quite so easy for a pious Jew, brought up and trained as Thomas had been, to receive at once the resurrection of our Lord as a proved thing, as it may appear at first sight to an English mind. Musculus remarks, how extraordinary the unbelief of Thomas seems, when we consider that he not only had heard our Lord frequently foretell His resurrection, but had actually within a few weeks seen Lazarus raised from the dead at Bethany! Bengel remarks, "No doubt Thomas seemed to himself to be entertaining and expressing sentiments altogether judicious. But unbelief, while it attributes defects in judgment to others, often itself discovers and betrays hardness of heart, and in that hardness slowness of belief." v20.—[And after eight days again, etc.] This verse describes how Jesus was graciously pleased to appear again to the company of the Apostles, for the express purpose of convincing and satisfying the mind of Thomas. He came "after eight days." That means a week, according to the Jewish manner of expressing a space of time, by which the first and last days were always reckoned in, if any part of them was employed. Thus our Lord was buried on Friday afternoon and rose again on Sunday morning, and was actually only thirty-six hours in the grave. But a Jew would say that He was "three days" buried. It thus appears that, both on the first and second times when our Lord appeared to the Apostles, it was a Sunday. Poole remarks that we have here the beginning of keeping holy the first day of the week. He came when the disciples were "within." That means that they were assembled in a room, and probably in the same house where they had assembled before. The conviction and reproof of a weak disciple was a thing which was mercifully transacted in private, and among friends. We cannot doubt, moreover, that at this period the disciples would hardly dare to assemble in the open air anywhere about Jerusalem. The rumour that they stole the body of our Lord would still be rife in the city, and they might well feel the necessity of caution. He came when "Thomas was with them." That means that He timed His visit, so that not one of the Apostles were missing. He knew exactly who were assembled, and where they were assembled, and He ordered His appearance accordingly. It should be a great comfort to believers to remember that their Lord's eye is always upon them, and that He knows exactly in what place and in what company they are. He came "when the doors were shut." That means that He appeared exactly under the same circumstances under which He appeared a week before, in an evening, when the doors were carefully closed for fear of the Jews. Thus, as on the previous Sunday, He suddenly, without a moment's notice, stood in the midst of the assembled disciples. He came with the same gracious salutation with which He had appeared before. Once more, the first word that fell from His lips is "Peace be unto you." Thomas was there. The disciple who made his emphatic declaration of unbelief, might well expect to hear some word of rebuke. But our Lord makes no exception. He saw Thomas, and well knew all that Thomas had said; and yet to him, as well as to the other ten, He once more says "Peace." We should note carefully the amazing kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ to a weak disciple, and the trouble He was pleased to take, if I may use such a phrase with due reverence, about one single soul. The unbelief of Thomas was most provoking and inexcusable, and if he had been cast out of the company of disciples we could not have said his excommunication was undeserved. But our Lord cares tenderly for this weak member of His mystical body, and specially appears in order to heal and restore him. What a wonderful example He gives to all His people! How kind we ought to be to weak brethren, and how ready to take any pains and trouble if we can only do them good! The Christian of modern times, who is ready to excommunicate every one who cannot speak his shibboleth, and see every point of doctrine and ceremonial with his eyes,— the Christian who is ready to turn away from every brother who is overtaken in a fault, as graceless, godless, and unconverted,— such a Christian may flatter himself that he is very zealous and faithful. But he is a Christian who has not got the mind of Christ. What Christ did for Thomas, we ought to be ready to do for others. Let us not forget that Thomas continued a whole week in unbelief and doubt, while his brethren around him were rejoicing. We may well believe that it was not a very happy week with him. He that sows a short period of scepticism often reaps a long period of trouble. Rupertus, almost alone, maintains that the second appearance of our Lord, for the special benefit of Thomas, was in Galilee, in Nazareth, at the house of Mary. But the vast majority of commentators think that it was at Jerusalem. Musculus observes how kind and brotherly was the dealing of the ten Apostles with Thomas. They did not excommunicate him, and cast him out of their society for his unbelief, but allowed him to assemble with them as before. Rollock observes, "The loving dealing of the Lord with Thomas teaches us this comfortable lesson. The Lord marks not narrowly the infirmities and wants that are in His own. He looks not narrowly to the weakness of their faith, to the imperfections and wants of their prayers and requests, for their prayers are full of imperfections. But He passes by their imperfections, He oversees their infirmities, He misknows the corruption wherein their faith and prayers and desires are involved, and hath a regard to their faith, albeit they have it in small measure." v27.—[Then saith He to Thomas, etc.] The verse before us is a wonderful instance of Christ's pitifulness and condescension. To come into the world at all, and take a body on Him,— to allow that body to be scourged, crowned with thorns, nailed to the cross, and laid in the grave,— all this, beyond doubt, was astonishing condescension. But when the victory over sin and death was won, and He had taken on Him His resurrection body, to come to a doubting, sceptical disciple, and bid him touch Him, put his finger into the nail-prints on His hands, and put his hand into the great wound in His side,— all this was a condescension which we can never sufficiently admire and adore. The last sentence of the verse is a rebuke and an exhortation at the same time. It would have been more literally rendered, "Be not an unbeliever, but a believer." It is not merely a reproof to Thomas for his scepticism on this particular occasion, but an urgent counsel to be of a more believing turn of mind for time to come.— "Shake off this habit of doubting, questioning, and discrediting every one. Give up thine unbelieving disposition. Become more willing to believe and trust, and give credit to testimony for time to come."— No doubt the primary object of the sentence was to correct and chastise Thomas for his sceptical declaration on the preceding Sunday. But I believe our Lord had in view the further object of correcting Thomas's whole character, and directing his attention to his besetting sin. How many there are among us who ought to take to themselves our Lord's words! How faithless we often are, and how slow to believe! Let us note here, as already remarked, that the wounds on our Lord's body must have been still open, from the language He addresses to Thomas, and that the wound in His side must have been a very large wound, from His telling Thomas to thrust in his hand. Let us not fail to observe our Lord's perfect knowledge of all that passed on the previous Sunday, of all that the Apostles had said, and of the sceptical declaration which Thomas had made. Such knowledge showed clearly that He was God and not man. He hears every idle word we say, and notes all our conversation. Let us observe our Lord's thorough acquaintance with the special faults and besetting sins of every one of His people. He saw that Thomas's defect was his unbelief, and so He says, "Be not faithless, but believing." v28.—[And Thomas...my Lord...my God.] The famous answer of Thomas, contained in this verse, is precisely the short interjectional exclamation of a man taken by surprise, convinced at once of his own grievous mistake, and so overwhelmed by a variety of feelings that he is unable for the moment to use many words. It is the language of amazement, delight, repentance, faith and adoration, all combined in one sentence. Whether it is to be taken in the third person, as an exclamation, "It is my Lord and my God!" or in the second person, as an adoring, loving, believing address, "Thou art my Lord and my God," is an open question which the original Greek does not settle. If I must give an opinion, I prefer the second person. But in either case the sense is good. The text before us is one of those which are justly quoted, as an unanswerable proof of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is called "God" in the presence of ten witnesses, and He accepts the language, and does not say one word to reprove the person who uses it. Unless a person is prepared to deny the inspiration of John's Gospel generally, or the genuineness and correctness of this text in particular, it is hard to see how the force of the sentence in favour of Christ's divinity can be evaded.— The suggestion of Theodoras of Mopsuestia, and some modern Socinians, that Thomas only used a kind of oath or exclamation, which he did not mean to apply to Christ Himself, is utterly untenable, and almost profane. It is unreasonable to suppose that a pious Jew, like Thomas, would take God's name in vain and break the third commandment, however much he might be surprised. Moreover, there is no proof whatever, although a careless Greek, Roman, or Englishman, might say "My God," when suddenly taken by surprise, that any such expression was in use among the Jews. In short there is, in my judgment, but one way of regarding the text, if we treat it honestly. It is an incontrovertible proof that Thomas looked on Christ as God, and addressed Him to His face as God, and that our Lord made no objection, and did not reprove him. Bullinger remarks how emphatically Thomas says, "MY Lord and MY God," showing the reality of his faith. Rollock says, "If we compare Thomas with the other Apostles, we shall see that as he surpassed them all in unbelief, so he surpassed them far in believing and confessing the Lord." But he adds, "Jesus praises not Thomas for his faith, because he tied his faith to his senses. He calls him not blessed for it, but pronounces them blessed who believe without seeing." Whether, after all, Thomas did actually touch our Lord's wounds, as he was told to do, is an open question, which we have no means of deciding. There is certainly, as Augustine observes, no proof that he did, and his exclamation reads as if it was sudden and immediate, and not the result of examination and deliberation. May we not well believe that the discovery of our Lord's perfect acquaintance with every word that he had said on the previous Sunday, combined with the evidence of his own eyes that he saw before him a material body, and not a spirit, would be enough to convince him? The question is an open one, and every reader must form his own opinion about it. We are neither told that Thomas did touch our Lord, nor yet that he did not. Certainly our Lord says in the next verse, "Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed." v29.—[Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, etc.] This verse contains a grave and solemn rebuke to Thomas, and a warning to all who are disposed to demand an excessive amount of evidence before they believe. The first part of our Lord's words would be translated more literally, "Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed." The whole sentence may be thus paraphrased and expounded. "Thomas, thou hast at last believed my resurrection, because thou hast seen Me with thine own eyes, and touched Me with thine own hands. It is well. But it would have been far better if thou hadst believed a week ago, on the testimony of thy ten brethren, and not waited to see Me. Remember from henceforth, that in my kingdom they are more blessed and honourable who believe on good testimony, without seeing, than those who insist first on seeing, before they believe." The sentence "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed," would be rendered literally, "Blessed are those persons not having seen and having believed,"— consisting, as it does, of two participles connected with "blessed." The idea that our Lord had in view any particular person, such as Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and, generally, the Old Testament saints, appears to me utterly untenable. I believe our Lord had in view no individual case, but only laid down a great general principle which Thomas had forgotten, as a lesson to him and the whole Church in every age. The construction of the Greek language allows us to regard the past tense as a present, in such a sentence as this. (See Jelf's Greek Grammar, 401, 403; and Farrar's Greek Syntax, 130.) Gregory well says, "The incredulity of Thomas has done us more good than the faith of Mary." He means that if Thomas had never doubted, we should not have had such full proof that Christ rose from the dead. The principle contained in the sentence before us, is one of vast importance in every age, and specially in our own. In a day of scepticism, free inquiry and rationalism, so-called, when hundreds are continually railing against creeds, and dogmatism, and priestcraft, the sentence deserves close attention and consideration. Nothing is more common now a days than to hear people say, that they "decline to believe things above their reason, that they cannot believe what they cannot entirely understand in religion, that they must see everything clearly before they can believe." Such talk as this sounds very fine, and is very taking with young persons and superficially educated people, because it supplies a convenient reason for neglecting vital religion altogether. But it is a style of talking which shows a mind either proud, or foolish, or inconsistent. In matters of science, what sensible man does not know that we must begin by believing much which we do not understand, taking many positions on trust, and accepting many things on the testimony of others? Even in the most exact science the scholar must begin with axioms and postulates. Faith and trust in our teachers is the very first condition of acquiring knowledge. He that begins his studies by saying "I shall not believe anything which I do not see clearly demonstrated from the very first," will make very little progress. In the daily business of life, what sensible man does not know that we take many important steps on no other ground than the testimony of others? Parents send sons to Australia, New Zealand, China, and India, without ever having seen these countries, in faith that the report about them is dependable and true. Probability, in fact, is the only guide of most parts of our life. In the face of such facts as these, where is the common sense of saying, as many rationalists and sceptics now do, that in such a mysterious matter as the concern of our souls, we ought to believe nothing that we do not see, and ought to receive nothing as true which will not admit of mathematical demonstration?— Christianity does not at all refuse to appeal to our intellects, and does not require of us a blind, unreasoning faith. But Christianity does ask us to begin by believing many things that are above our reason, and promises that, so beginning, we shall have more light and see all things clearly.— The would-be wise man of modern times says, "I dislike a religion which contains any mystery, I must first see, and then I will believe." Christianity replies, "You cannot avoid mystery, unless you go out of the world. You are only asked to do with religion what you are always doing with science. You must first believe and then you will see."— The cry of the modern sceptic is, "If I could see I would believe." The answer of the Christian ought to be, "If you would only believe, and humbly ask for Divine teaching, you would soon see." The plain truth is that modern freethinkers are like the Jews, who were always demanding some visible sign that our Lord was the Messiah, and pretended that they would believe if they only saw it. Just in the same way there are hundreds of people in this latter age of the world, who tell us they can believe nothing which is above their reason, and that they want stronger evidences of the truth of the doctrine and fact of Christianity than probability. Like Thomas they must first see before they believe.— But what an extraordinary fact it is that the very men who say all this, are continually acting all their lives on no better evidence than probability! They are continually doing things on no other ground than the report of others, and their own belief that this report is probably true. The very principle on which they are incessantly acting, in the affairs of their bodies, their families, and their money, is the principle on which they refuse to act in the affairs of their souls! In the things of this world they believe all sorts of things which they have not seen, and only know to be probable, and act on their belief. In the things of the eternal world they say they can believe nothing which they do not see, and refuse the argument of probability altogether. Never, in fact, was there anything so unreasonable and inconsistent as rationalism, so called! No wonder that our Lord laid down, for the benefit of Thomas and the whole Church, that mighty principle, "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed." The remarks of Richard Cecil, on the subject before us, are so apposite that I make no apology for quoting them. They will be found in his "Original Thoughts." (Vol. i., p. 440— 442.) "When a man doubts, after proper evidence, God calls it folly. When we complain and want more evidence, the fault is in us and not in God's dispensations. A humble spirit will accept a glimmering light, and not refuse to walk because it has not the noon-day sun. Incredulity, as to divine truth, has its root in pride and self-sufficiency, and is accompanied by much rashness and ignorance. It presumes to understand and comprehend everything that is proposed to it. The incredulous man calls for demonstration. The feeble creature, who cannot explain the nature of his own formation, would have things made out as plain as that 'two and two make four.' The true believer receives the truths of the Bible as he receives the kingdom of heaven,— with the simplicity of a little child."— — "Let us beware of the danger of following our own imaginations. A man may make one demand after another, till, at last, nothing will satisfy him; and the next step is, that, when he will not be content with what God shows him, he shall be left in darkness and perplexity.— Consider the nature of believing: it is not like believing that two and two make four. Do not men believe on probability in other things? God has given all the evidence that man requires or needs; and if in a right mind, we shall thank God for the dispensation of light we have, willing to walk by faith and not by sight. If we do not get on in this way, we shall not get on at all. Divine justice punishes incredulity by credulity: by giving up the unbelieving to the dominion and bondage of strong delusions. When men get into a high mind and an unbelieving spirit, and reject the truth, God punishes them by letting them 'believe a lie.' Let us take heed how we say, like Thomas, we will not walk at all without such light as we think proper." The opinion expressed by Dean Stanley, following Dr. Arnold (in Smith's "Bible Dictionary," Article "Thomas"), that Thomas is a remarkable example of "free inquiry combined with fervent belief," is one which I only mention in order to express my dissent from it.— I see nothing like "free inquiry" in this Apostle. I read of no question he asked of his brethren. I see no trace of any willingness to investigate, sift, weigh, and consider the testimony which they bore. I discover no readiness to go to the grave, to examine the linen clothes, to talk with Mary Magdalene, to question the two disciples who journeyed to Emmaus. All this would have been "free inquiry." But I see nothing of the kind. I only see a dull, obstinate, desponding declaration that, whatever his ten friends may say, he will not believe till he sees. This cannot surely deserve the name of "free inquiry"!— As to the "fervent belief" of Thomas, no doubt, at last, when his most compassionate Saviour almost forced conviction on him, in pity for his dulness, and made unbelief quite impossible, he made a most beautiful confession of faith. But it was a confession, we must remember, that came out only at the last moment, and was extracted, as it were, by a miracle of kindness. Above all, beautiful as it was, it did not prevent his gracious Master speaking words of grave and solemn rebuke. Beyond doubt, Thomas lay down that night a pardoned and forgiven man,— a man raised from desperate faithlessness to strong faith. But we must not forget that he was not praised and commended, though raised, convinced, and pardoned. If words mean anything, he had received a reproof, and one that I doubt not he felt deeply. To me therefore it appears that, to represent him as an example of "free inquiry combined with fervent belief," is an entire mistake, and a misapprehension both of his character and of the whole drift of the remarkable narrative of this passage. If, as I believe, Mark's remarkable words apply to this appearance of our Lord for the special benefit of Thomas, it is impossible to regard our Lord's language to Thomas in any other sense than that of rebuke. Mark says, "He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen." (Mark 16:14.) Most commentators certainly take this view. Chrysostom says that Thomas received "a sharp rebuke." v30, v31.—[And many other signs, etc.] The two last verses in this chapter contain one of those parenthetical comments, or glosses, which are so peculiar to the Gospel of John. It must be admitted that they seem to break the thread of the narrative, and come in with a rather startling effect. We need not, therefore, wonder that the right meaning of the two verses has long been a subject of dispute. (a) Some think, as Calvin, Ecolampadius, Brentius, Poole, Rollock, Lampe, Hengstenberg, Pearce, and Alford, that John refers to the whole history of Christ's ministry, and is comparing his own Gospel with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They would paraphrase the two verses in the following way:— "Jesus did many other miracles during His ministry, under the eyes of His disciples, which are not recorded in this Gospel of mine, though they are recorded in the other three. But those few which are recorded in this my Gospel, are recorded in order that you who read it may be convinced that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ of God, and that believing on Him you may have eternal life through His name."— It is a heavy objection to this interpretation, that the two verses, on this view, appear to come in rather abruptly, and without much connection with what goes either before or after. In short, it is not very easy to explain why they come in here at all.— Moreover, it is not very easy to see the drift of the expression, "signs in presence of His disciples," considering that many of our Lord's greatest miracles were worked before people who were not disciples at all.— Furthermore, it is not very clear what John can mean by saying "other" signs. That word "other" seems to point to miracles just performed, yet there was no special miracle performed at this particular, beyond, of course, our Lord's miraculous appearances. (b) Others, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Rupertus, Beza, Bullinger, Calovius, Musculus, Gerhard, Ferus, Toletus, Maldonatus, Henry, Tholuck, Scott, Bloomfield, and Olshausen, think that John writes these two verses with a special reference to the wondrous signs and evidences which the Lord had just given to the disciples of His own resurrection from the dead. They would paraphrase the two verses in this way:— "Many other wondrous proofs did the Lord give to the Apostles of His own resurrection, which are not written down in this Gospel, though they are written in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But the three appearances which I have narrated, are written down in order to convince you that Jesus is the true Messiah, the Christ of God, and that, believing this firmly, you may have eternal life through faith in His name."— According to this view the two verses refer to nothing but this twentieth chapter, and are a parenthetical comment on it. It is as though John would say, "Do not suppose that these three appearances of Christ are the only wondrous signs and proofs of His resurrection. There are others which you will find recorded in the other three Gospels. But I have related these three in order to confirm your faith, and to show you that in believing on a risen Saviour you are resting on solid ground." Of the two views I prefer the second one, as involving the fewest difficulties. It is more probable, considering John's peculiar style of writing, to suppose that he makes a short parenthetical remark about a single chapter, than to suppose that he makes it about the whole of his Gospel. Above all this second view gets over the heavy objection that, after bringing his whole Gospel to a conclusion by a general remark on the whole of it as compared to the other three Gospels, John seems to begin again in the twenty-first chapter, and to write a postscript or appendix.— In short the common theory, that these two verses apply to the whole Gospel, makes John finish his history, lay down his pen, complete his work, and then suddenly take up his pen again, and add the twenty-first chapter as a kind of after-thought. To say the least, this is an undignified, not to say rather irreverent, view of the composition of an inspired writer!— The other theory, or the theory which strictly confines the application of the two concluding verses of the twentieth chapter to the matter contained in that chapter, viz., the signs which our Lord gave of His resurrection, is entirely in keeping with John's style of writing his Gospel. He simply remarks parenthetically that there are other proofs of Christ's resurrection, which are to be found in the other Gospels, and that he has only written down such accounts as he was guided by the Spirit to consider most calculated to stablish the faith of his readers. I frankly confess that the passage appears to come in abruptly under any view, and I cannot expect that all will adopt the explanation which I have advocated. If the Gospel of John had ended with this twentieth chapter, I might perhaps have acquiesced in the theory that the two verses were meant to form a brief concluding remark about the whole of the Evangelist's work; and a brief admission of the fact that he passed over many miracles recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But I cannot acquiesce in the theory, when I see that John goes on to write the twenty-first chapter. The existence of that chapter alone satisfies me that, in the two verses before us, John is only speaking of the signs of Christ's resurrection, which he has supplied, and is admitting that there are others in the other Gospels. As a rule, moreover, when I find a parenthetical comment or gloss in John's Gospel, I prefer to apply it to the immediate subject of which he is speaking. It is the habit of this Evangelist to turn aside for a moment, and make a short explanatory remark; and then to take up the thread again, and go on with his history. Of this habit, I think the two verses before us are an example. When the Holy Ghost plenarily inspired the writer of any Book of Scripture, both as to His faith and His words, He did not prevent Him writing in his own peculiar style. Whatever view we may take of the matter in dispute about these two verses, there are things in them which are abundantly clear and ought never to be forgotten. For one thing, John generously recognizes the existence of other books beside his own, and disclaims the idea of his own Gospel being the only one which Christians ought to read. Happy is that author who can humbly say, "My book does not contain everything about the subject it handles. There are other books about it. Read them."— For another thing, we should note the grand end and object for which this and all the books of the New Testament were written. They were written to glorify Christ, to make us believe on Him as the only Saviour of sinners, and to lead us to eternal life through faith in His name. It is interesting to remember that ecclesiastical historians assign to Thomas the honour of being the Apostle who first preached the Gospel in India; and they also say that he there suffered martyrdom. A society of Christians in Malabar is said to be still known by his name. Unhappily the truth of all this is very doubtful, and rests on a very sandy foundation. The appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ after His resurrection, described in these verses, is a deeply interesting portion of the Gospel history. The circumstances attending it have always been regarded as highly allegorical and figurative, in every age of the Church. It may, however, be justly doubted whether commentators and interpreters have not gone too far in this direction. It is quite possible to spiritualize and filter away the narratives of the Gospels, until we completely lose sight of the plain meaning of words. In the present case we shall find it wise to confine ourselves to the great, simple lessons, which the passage undoubtedly contains. We should observe, for one thing, in these verses, the poverty of the first disciples of Christ. We find them working with their own hands, in order to supply their temporal wants, and working at one of the humblest of callings,— the calling of a fisherman. Silver and gold they had none, lands and revenues they had none, and therefore they were not ashamed to return to the business to which they had, most of them, been trained. Striking is the fact, that some of the seven here named were fishing, when our Lord first called them to be Apostles, and again fishing, when He appeared to them almost the last time. We need not doubt that to the minds of Peter, James, and John, the coincidence would come home with peculiar power. The poverty of the Apostles goes far to prove the divine origin of Christianity. These very men who toiled all night in a boat, dragging about a cold wet net, and taking nothing,— these very men who found it necessary to work hard in order that they might eat,— these very men were some of the first founders of the mighty Church of Christ, which has now overspread one-third of the globe. These were they who went forth from an obscure corner of the earth, and turned the world upside down. These were the unlearned and ignorant men, who boldly confronted the subtle systems of ancient philosophy, and silenced its advocates by the preaching of the cross. These were the men who at Ephesus, and Athens, and Rome, emptied the heathen temples of their worshipers, and turned away multitudes to a new and better faith. He that can explain these facts, except by admitting that Christianity came down from God, must be a strangely credulous man. Reason and common sense lead us to only one conclusion in the matter. Nothing can account for the rise and progress of Christianity but the direct interposition of God. We should observe, for another thing, in these verses, the different characters of different disciples of Christ. Once more, on this deeply interesting occasion, we see Peter and John side by side in the same boat, and once more, as at the sepulcher, we see these two good men behaving in different ways. When Jesus stood on the shore, in the dim twilight of the morning, John was the first to perceive who it was, and to say, "It is the Lord;" but Peter was the first to spring into the water, and to struggle to get close to his Master. In a word, John was the first to see; but Peter was the first to act. John's gentle loving spirit was quickest to discern; but Peter's fiery, impulsive nature was quickest to stir and move. And yet both were believers, both were true-hearted disciples, both loved the Lord in life, and were faithful to Him unto death. But their natural temperaments were not the same. Let us never forget the practical lesson before us. As long as we live, let us diligently use it in forming our estimate of believers. Let us not condemn others as graceless and unconverted, because they do not see the path of duty from our stand-point, or feel things exactly as we feel them. "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:4.) The gifts of God's children are not bestowed precisely in the same measure and degree. Some have more of one gift, and some have more of another. Some have gifts which shine more in public, and some which shine more in private. Some are more bright in a passive life, and some are more bright in an active one. Yet each and all the members of God's family, in their own way and in their own season, bring glory to God. Martha was "careful and troubled about much serving," when Mary "sat at the feet of Jesus and heard His word." Yet there came a day at Bethany, when Mary was crushed and prostrated by overmuch sorrow, and Martha's faith shone more brightly than her sister's. (Luke 10:39-40; John 11:20-28.) Nevertheless both were loved by our Lord. The one thing needful is to have the grace of the Spirit, and to love Christ. Let us love all of whom this can be said, though they may not see with our eyes in everything. The Church of Christ needs servants of all kinds, and instruments of every sort; penknives as well as swords, axes as well as hammers, chisels as well as saws, Marthas as well as Marys, Peters as well as Johns. Let our ruling maxim be this, "Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." (Ephesians 6:24.) We should observe, lastly, in these verses, the abundant evidence which Scripture supplies of our Lord Jesus Christ's resurrection. Here, as in other places, we find an unanswerable proof that our Lord rose again with a real material body, and a proof seen by seven grown-up men with their own eyes, at one and the same time. We see Him sitting, talking, eating, drinking, on the shore of the lake of Galilee, and to all appearance for a considerable time. The morning sun of spring shines down on the little party. They are alone by the well-known Galilean lake, far away from the crowd and noise of Jerusalem. In the midst sits the Master, with the nail-prints in His hands,— the very Master whom they had all followed for three years, and one of them, at least, had seen hanging on the cross. They could not be deceived. Will anyone pretend to say that stronger proof could be given that Jesus rose from the dead? Can any one imagine better evidence of a fact? That Peter was convinced and satisfied we know. He says himself to Cornelius, We did "eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead." (Acts 10:41.) Those who in modern times say they are not convinced, may as well say that they are determined not to believe any evidence at all. Let us all thank God that we have such a cloud of witnesses to prove that our Lord rose again. The resurrection of Christ is the grand proof of Christ's divine mission. He told the Jews they need not believe He was the Messiah, if He did not rise again the third day.— The resurrection of Christ is the topstone of the work of redemption. It proved that He finished the work He came to do, and, as our Substitute, had overcome the grave.— The resurrection of Christ is a miracle that no infidel can explain away. Men may carp and cavil at Balaam's ass, and Jonah in the whale's belly, if they please, but till they can prove that Christ did not rise again we need not be moved.— Above all, the resurrection of Christ is the pledge of our own. As the grave could not detain the Head, so it shall not detain the members. Well may we say with Peter, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (1 Peter 1:3.) ================== Notes— The last chapter of John's Gospel requires a few preliminary observations. Certain very objectionable theories have been propounded about it. (a) Some, as Grotius, maintain that the chapter was not written by John at all, that his Gospel ended with the last verse of the twentieth chapter, and that the twenty-first chapter is the work of another writer, perhaps one John an Ephesian presbyter! (b) Others do not go so far as this, and yet maintain that the chapter must be regarded as a postscript or appendix to the Gospel, and was probably added, as an afterthought, by John himself, some years after the rest of the Gospel. The chief ground on which these theories are built is the passage with which the twentieth chapter ends. Men tell us that the two concluding verses of that chapter were evidently intended to finish and wind up John's narrative, and that the twenty-first chapter comes in awkwardly and abruptly. From all these theories I entirely dissent, and repudiate them altogether. I see no proof whatever that the two last verses of the twentieth chapter were intended to be a winding up of the whole Gospel. To me they appear to be a characteristic comment of the Evangelist, such as he often makes, on the account he has given in the chapter of our Lord's appearances to the disciples after His resurrection, and nothing more. To me it appears perfectly natural that he should go on writing, and give a further account of our Lord's most instructive appearance at the sea of Galilee; and I see in the narrative no abruptness or awkward fitting whatever. On the contrary, I see a peculiar beauty in the selection of the matter which the twenty-first chapter contains. It seems to me a most fitting conclusion to the whole narrative of the Gospel, to tell us our Lord's last sayings about two such Apostles as Peter and John.— Concerning Peter, it should be remembered that none of the Apostles had professed so much, and yet fallen so sadly as he had. John takes care to tell us how graciously and emphatically Jesus restores him to his commission, and specially bids him feed His Church, and foretells his end.— Concerning John, it should be remembered that he had been peculiarly mentioned, as the disciple whom Jesus loved. He meekly tells us that the only prediction about himself, if it can be called one, was that his future end was left in obscurity by his Lord. And thus he concludes his Gospel. If any one thinks that such a chapter comes in awkwardly, and is not a fitting conclusion to John's narrative after the twentieth chapter, I cannot agree with him. Of evidence, whether external or internal, that the theories I have referred to deserve consideration, there is a conspicuous absence. There is not the slightest proof that any trustworthy ancient writer ever regarded the last chapter of John's Gospel, as less genuine and less inspired than the rest of the book. There is nothing in the language or style of the chapter, to create any suspicion that any other person than John composed it. Those who wish to see this subject fully investigated, are advised to study Wordsworth's Appendix to John's Gospel, in his Commentary. When I add to this statement the fact that, in every age, the wisest and holiest commentators have seen in this chapter several singularly deep and interesting types of the history and position of Christ's Church in the world, I think I shall have said enough to satisfy many readers, that they may approach the last chapter of John's Gospel with as much reverence, and as much reasonable expectation of getting benefit from it, as any other chapter in the book. v1.—[After these things.] This expression is indefinite. It only means that the appearance of our Lord, about to be described in this chapter, took place "after" His appearance on the eighth day following His resurrection. The time therefore, in the verse before us, is some day between the eighth and the fortieth day, when He ascended up into heaven. But what precise day we cannot tell. One thing at any rate we may be sure of. It was not the Sabbath day, or else the disciples would not have gone fishing. Even on the day following the crucifixion, Christ's disciples "rested according to the commandment." (Luke 23:56.) [Jesus showed Himself again...disciples.] A deep question naturally rises out of the expression before us. Where was our Lord on the days when He did not "manifest or show Himself" to His disciples? It is evident that He was not with them always, and that He only visited them at intervals. Where was He then in the mean time?— Not in heaven, we may be sure, because He had not yet ascended. But where was He on earth? I speak of course of His human nature. As God, He is everywhere. But where was He, as man? This is a mysterious matter, and one about which it is useless to speculate. Enough for us to know that our Lord was visible or invisible, and appeared suddenly in one place or another place, and assumed one form or another form, at His own will, after a manner that we cannot understand. But it is quite plain that, when we read the words in Acts, "being seen of them forty days" (Acts 1:3), we must not suppose them to mean that our Lord was seen every day. It only means that during forty days He was seen at intervals. Each appearance, we doubt not, had its own special purpose and intention. Chrysostom remarks, "It is clear from the words "showed Himself," that Christ was not seen (after His resurrection) unless He condescended, because His body was henceforth incorruptible, and of unmixed purity." [At the Sea of Tiberias.] Concerning this remarkable piece of water, sometimes called the Lake of Gennesaret, and sometimes the Sea of Galilee, I have already said something in my note on John 6:1. (Vol. 1, "Expository Thoughts on John," p. 329.) It is a fresh-water lake, through which the river Jordan runs, twelve and a half miles long and six and three-quarters broad, and remarkable in a geological point of view, as being six hundred and fifty-five feet below the level of the Mediterranean Sea. [Footnote: I give the above measurements from Tristram's "Topography of the Holy Land," as I believe they are more trustworthy than those which I gave in the first volume of this work.] In a theological point of view it must always be most interesting to a Christian, because some of our Lord's mightiest miracles were wrought on it, or close to it. Here our Lord walked on the waters, and came to the disciples toiling in rowing. Here He stilled the wind and waves with a word. Here He granted to four of His Apostles a miraculous draught of fishes. Here He provided payment of the tribute-money, out of the mouth of a fish which He commanded Peter to catch. On the banks of this lake He fed a multitude with a few loaves and fishes. On a high ground overhanging this lake He cast out the legion of devils, and allowed them to drive 2,000 swine into the sea. In the towns upon this lake, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, He did some of His mightiest works. Sitting in a boat on this lake, He delivered the parable of the Sower. In short, of all the districts in which our Lord preached and wrought miracles, there was none which saw and heard so much as the district round "the Sea of Tiberias." Can we doubt, when we remember all this, that our Lord had a deep purpose and meaning, in appearing to His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias? Can we doubt that He meant to remind them of all they had seen in former days of his wisdom, love, and power, by the side of these well-known waters? He knew well the influence which scenery and places exercise over the mind of man. He would recall to the memory of His disciples all that they had witnessed in the early days of His ministry. Above all He would stir the hearts of Peter and James and John, by saying some of His last things to them, at the very place where He had first called them to leave their boats and nets, to follow Him, and to become fishers of men. Where He had begun with them, there He would have one of His last interviews with them, before leaving the world. The exact spot where our Lord appeared at the Sea of Tiberias, is of course unknown. But when we remember that Bethsaida, at the north end of the lake, was "the city of Andrew and Peter," (John 1:44), we may safely conjecture that the scene of this chapter was somewhere near Bethsaida. The boat in which Peter went fishing would most probably either be his own boat, or the property of some relative or friend in his native city. [And on this wise shewed He Himself.] This is a somewhat curious sentence. It does not, I think, only mean "The manner of His appearance was as follows." I suspect that it was inserted emphatically, in order to direct our special attention to all the little details of the occurrence, and to remind us that even the minutest parts of it have a deep spiritual meaning. v2.—[There were together Simon Peter, etc.] This verse contains the names of the seven witnesses, before whom the remarkable appearance of Christ, about to be described, took place. Seven, we may remember, is the number of perfection, and the evidence of seven witnesses was regarded as the most complete evidence that could be given. Two of the seven, we shall observe, are not named, and we are left entirely to conjecture who these two were. Most commentators think they must have been Andrew and Philip,— Andrew because he was Peter's brother, and Philip because he was an inhabitant of Bethsaida on the Lake. But we really do not know, and it is useless to guess. Why these seven alone, out of the eleven, were here, we are not told. But we need not doubt there was good reason. All the company of the Apostles, we may believe, went into Galilee when the passover feast was over, according to our Lord's command, and probably very soon after His appearance for the benefit of Thomas. But where Matthew, Simon, James the less, and Jude, were, on the present occasion, we do not know. It is worth noting that this is the only place in John's Gospel, where he mentions the name of his own father, Zebedee. Why these seven disciples in particular were together is worth inquiry. The presence of Simon Peter, as he lived in Galilee, and had a special message from our Lord that He was going into Galilee, we can understand. Thomas, once convinced that Jesus had risen, would very likely take care to stick close to Peter and John. Nathaniel lived at Cana in Galilee, and was probably Bartholomew. Augustine, however, doubts this. The two sons of Zebedee were Simon's partners, and are always found together with him on great occasions. The message of our Lord about Galilee, we must remember, was, "Tell my brethren that they go into Galilee: there shall they see Me." (Matthew 28:10.) These were our Lord's own words.— The angel also said to the women, "He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see Him." (Matthew 28:7.) We might reasonably expect to find the Apostles in Galilee after this. On Thomas being one of the party, Henry remarks, "Thomas is named next to Peter, as if he now kept closer to the meetings of the Apostles than ever. It is well if losses by our neglect make us more careful afterwards not to let opportunities slip." v3.—[Simon Peter saith unto them, etc.] Some worthy commentators have presumed to find fault with Peter for going a fishing. They say that he showed a disposition to return to the world, and to follow his worldly calling once more. From this view I entirely dissent. I see no harm whatever in Peter's conduct on this occasion. He and his companions were poor men, and must needs work in order to provide for their subsistence. There was nothing wrong in the act of fishing, and it was only natural to take up the business with which they were most familiar. The great business of going out as our Lord's messengers, to preach the Gospel, was not to begin until His ascension, and in the interval it was better to follow an honest calling than to be idle. Neither in Peter's proposal, nor in the simple frank consent of his companions, can I detect a jot of proof that anything wrong was done. Idleness does Christians far more injury than work. Among the Jews every man, whatever his rank or position might be, was required to learn a worldly calling. Chrysostom remarks, "Since neither Christ was with them continually, nor was the Spirit yet given, nor they at that time entrusted with anything, having nothing to do, they went after their trade." Augustine observes, "The Apostles were not forbidden to seek their necessary subsistence by the exercise of their craft, a lawful and permitted one, if at any time they had no other means of subsistence." He also remarks that they were no more to blame than Paul was, when he wrought with his own hands as a tentmaker. (Acts 18:3.) Calvin remarks, "Peter had not yet been enjoined to appear in public, for the discharge of his office of teaching, but had only been reminded of his future calling (John 20:21-23), that he and others might understand that they had not in vain been chosen from the beginning. Meanwhile, they were to do what they were accustomed to do, and what belonged to men in private life." Ferus remarks that a lawful business is not sinful. If Matthew had gone back to a publican's life it would have been a very different thing from Peter going to fish. Stier remarks that this going to fish was only carrying out our Lord's words. "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36.) The expression "a boat" should have been translated "the boat." Does not the use of the article show that this was that well-known boat, which our Lord and His disciples had always used, when they went on the lake? In the fact that "they caught nothing that night," there is nothing that would surprise a fisherman. Of all callings by which men earn their living none is more uncertain than that of a fisherman. (Luke 5:5.) "Night" is the time when most fish are caught, as all who are familiar with fishing know. That there was probably a deep typical meaning in all this, I shall hope to show when I reach the end of the passage. I think it better to reserve all remarks upon that point, until I can present them to the reader in one continuous form.— For the present, both here and throughout the passage, I shall simply comment on the facts as facts. Burgon remarks, "One thing is certain, and the circumstance is full of interest. It must have been their necessities which sent forth the Apostles on this lowly errand of fishing. And yet these were they on whom the Church was to be built! These seven were among the names written on the twelve foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem." Burgon also thinks that the words "went forth," point to the Apostles sitting together indoors, in the evening, and very likely on a Sabbath evening. v4.—[But when the morning...come.] This probably means, "When the day began to break, so that an object at a little distance could be seen." As soon as there was enough light, through the grey dawn, the party in the boat saw the figure of a person on the shore. There is little or no twilight in countries so far south as Palestine. Night goes, and day follows, much more suddenly than with us. [Jesus stood on the shore.] This reads like a sudden and instantaneous appearance, like that which took place when our Lord appeared the first time in the midst of the disciples. Just in the same manner, it seems to me, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, Jesus appeared standing on the shore of the lake. The risen body of our Lord, we must remember, appeared or disappeared,— was present or absent, according to His will, in a moment of time. Grotius remarks that our Lord never went on the sea after His resurrection. (Comp. Revelation 21:1.) "There was no more sea." [But the disciples knew not...was Jesus.] The disciples did not recognize our Lord, in my opinion, because He appeared in another form, just as He appeared to the two who were journeying to Emmaus. I reject entirely the idea that the dim light of the early morning was the reason why they did not know Him. It is evident to me that our Lord's risen body did not, on any occasion, after He rose again, for some mysterious reason, look exactly like the body He had before His crucifixion. It was the same, and yet not the same, if I may so speak. Will it not be so with our own bodies when we rise again at the last day? We shall be the same, and yet not the same. It is noteworthy that the Greek words here used, were exactly those that were used about Mary Magdalene, when she thought the gardener spoke to her, and "knew not that it was Jesus." (John 20:14.) v5.—[Then Jesus saith unto them, etc.] We cannot suppose for a moment, that our Lord did not know whether the disciples had any meat, when He asked the question of this verse. It is clear to me that He asked it in order to raise attention in the minds of the disciples, and to put them at ease in conversing with them. He appeared as a stranger, who was graciously pleased to say something familiar and friendly. Does it not remind us of the way in which He began conversation with the woman of Samaria, and broke the ice, as it were, between Him and her? "Give Me to drink," He said. (John 4:7.) Nothing sets people so much at ease, when they meet as strangers, as courteous inquiries about the simple matters of daily life. The word "meat" is a striking example of the change which comes over the meaning of English words in the course of time. It means literally "anything eatable."— Two centuries ago the word "meat" was a translation which no Englishman would misunderstand. Now, unfortunately, it is a word confined entirely to "flesh." No translation can ever be perfect. All require occasional reverent revision. The context seems to me to show that our Lord's inquiry was specially meant to apply to the success of the disciples in fishing. "Have ye caught anything that can be eaten?" The disciples evidently took it in this sense. It is worth noticing that our Lord must have spoken in a very loud voice, when He addressed His disciples in this verse. We are distinctly told that the boat was two hundred cubits, at least one hundred yards, from land, in the eighth verse, and there is nothing to show that the disciples put out further into the lake, when our Lord told them to cast in their net again. I mention this, because some, as Gerhard, Henry, and Besser, think that there was something curt, rough, and rather abrupt in the answer of the disciples. But they seem to forget that a conversation carried on over a hundred yards of water, could only be carried on in very brief and abrupt phrases. The word "children" in this verse, rendered "sirs" in the margin, is to my mind rightly rendered in the text. It is a familiar, friendly mode of address, like our English "boys" or "lads," not necessarily implying great youth in the persons addressed. v6.—[And He said...cast...right side...find.] Our Lord now goes a step further in order to discover Himself to His disciples. He gives a command or counsel to cast their net, which they had apparently hauled into the boat, once more into the water, and upon the right side of the ship. Such advice, and such a confident promise of success from a stranger, could hardly fail to strike the disciples. Would it not raise in the quick mind of John a suspicion, that this was no common stranger who spoke? Would not he and Peter both remember a former occasion, when they "toiled all the night and took nothing," and, yet at the command of their Master, had let down their nets again with marvellous success? I think they would. To me it seems highly probable that the disciples had finished their night's work, had hauled up their net into the boat, and were rowing toward home, tired of their profitless toil, when our Lord appeared and spoke to them. [They cast, therefore, and now...fishes.] In the fact that the disciples found a multitude of fishes in their net the moment they acted on our Lord's advice, there is, in one point of view, nothing extraordinary. Many fish swim in shoals, and it is quite a matter of common experience among fishermen, that one boat may take nothing, while a few yards off another boat has an immense haul. The miracle consisted in the perfect knowledge that our Lord possessed, as to where the fish were, and on which side of the boat to cast the net. This alone proved that He was omniscient. Whether it is likely that seven tired fishermen, after working all night, and hawling up their net and stowing it away, would stop on their way home at the advice of a stranger, and cast in their net once more in broad daylight, is a point which admits of question. My own impression is that a secret power and influence went with our Lord's words, and, without knowing why, the seven disciples felt irresistibly constrained to do what the mysterious stranger advised. v7.—[Therefore that disciple...the Lord.] The first to recognise Jesus was the disciple who first believed the resurrection,— the beloved disciple John, who as usual does not give his own name. With characteristic quickness and sensitiveness, he at once felt convinced that the mysterious stranger must be his beloved Master. Love is always keen-sighted. It suddenly flashed across his mind that the advice given by the stranger, and the result of following the advice, had been precisely the same three years before. The stranger must surely know what happened then, and must have been present! The stranger must be the Lord Himself! Thoughts such as these most probably passed through his mind far quicker then we can describe them; and at once he said to his friend Peter, who was most likely the leading man in the boat, "It is the Lord." Rollock thinks it was the wonderful draught of fishes that made John know it was the Lord. "He saw in it not only miraculous power, but wonderful bountifulness and liberality," just like His Divine Master. [Now when Simon Peter heard, etc.] The conduct of the Apostle Peter, here described, is eminently characteristic of the man. It is just what might have been expected from the disciple who went out of the ship to walk on the water on a former occasion, and drew his sword, and began to smite, when our Lord was surrounded by His enemies. Fervent, warm-hearted, impulsive, impetuous, affectionate, thinking nothing of consequences, acting on the spur of present feeling, he at once plunges into the sea, when he hears that his Lord is on the shore, and struggles to get close to Him. Whatever we may think of his hasty behaviour, we must all admire his love. Zeal for Christ deserves respect, even when it leads a man into hasty action. Enthusiasm, even when it runs to seed, is better than indifference. We should note how Peter rushed into action, the very moment that he "heard" the words, "It is the Lord." He did not wait to see, like Thomas on another occasion, but was satisfied with a word from his brother John. A single spark is enough to kindle tinder, and a single word is enough to stir a heart, when its affections are deeply concerned. The Greek word which is rendered "fisher's coat," is only found here in the New Testament. Theophylact says it was the upper garment of a Syrian fisherman. The context seems to show that it was a sort of garment which a fisherman laid aside, when in the very act of handling his nets. When we read that Peter was "naked," I see no reason why we should suppose that he was entirely without clothes. I think the meaning is, that he was comparatively naked, having laid aside all his looser garments, as a fisherman in that hot climate naturally would, in order to be able to handle wet nets and fish with greater convenience. And when we read that he girt around him his fisher's coat, I think it simply means that he took up the loose outward garment that he wore when he went on the lake to fish, and girded it tightly round his waist before jumping into the sea. When we read that Peter "cast himself into the sea," I see no reason for supposing that he swam to land. In order to swim it is not likely that he would put on more clothes!— I rather think that the water where he and his companions were was shallow, and that he waded to land. He knew that his large fishing-boat drew too much water to get near shore, and he was too impatient to wait for the slow process of launching the little boat, and coming ashore in it. I cannot doubt, as he jumped into the water, that he remembered going out of the same ship on a former occasion, and walking on the water "to go to Jesus." It is only fair to say that Chrysostom thinks that Peter swam. On the other hand Brentius, Gerhard, and Archbishop Whately (see Bengel's "Gnomon," English translation), think that he walked on the water, in a miraculous manner, as on the former occasion! v8.—[And the other disciples came, etc.] Here we see, placed in strong contrast with Peter's action, the way in which the six remaining Apostles came to land. They came in the boat ("a little ship" is a defective translation), which means the skiff or punt which most large fishing vessels have with them. The water was evidently too shallow for the large fishing vessel to get near shore. And they came slowly, we may be sure, because, for two hundred cubits, or one hundred yards, they had to drag behind their little boat a net full of fish. How heavy a drag such a net makes on a little boat's progress through the water, those only know who have had experience. It is noteworthy that we are not told that Peter got to shore at all sooner than his brethren. This point is, singularly enough, passed over in silence. But wading through deep water is slow work, and the fact that Peter put his coat on before plunging into the sea, is, to my own mind, strong indirect proof that he did not swim, but wade. It is noteworthy that Peter forgot fish, and net, and boat, and everything else, in his anxiety to reach Christ. It was like the Samaritan woman who "left her waterpot." (John 4:28.) v9.—[As soon then...fire...coals...fish...bread.] I cannot doubt that this verse records a miracle. Our blessed Lord made preparation for the bodily wants of His wearied disciples, and mercifully "furnished a table for them in the wilderness." (Psalms 78:19.) The burning fire, the fish lying on it, the bread, were all the creation of Him who had but to will a thing and it was done. Ever thoughtful, ever compassionate, our Lord thought good at this appearing, to show His poor toiling disciples that He cared for their bodies as well as their souls, and remembered that they were men. Who can tell but this miracle took place near the very spot where He had formerly fed five thousand men with a little bread and fish? I cannot doubt that the bread and fish thus miraculously created would remind the Apostles of "loaves and fishes" multiplied. Once more they saw the same miraculous food, bread and fish, provided by the same Almighty power of their Lord. The Greek word rendered "fire of coals," is only found in two places in the New Testament, here and in the account of the scene in the High Priest's hall at our blessed Lord's examination before Annas. (John 18:18.) It was a "fire of coals" at which the servants of the High Priest warmed themselves, and before which the Apostle Peter denied his Lord. Some think that our Lord had a special object in view by having a "fire of coals" in this place, and that was to remind Peter of his fall. But perhaps the idea is far-fetched. Stier argues strongly, but needlessly in my judgment, that this provision of bread and fish was made by the angels. In any case it was a miracle, and an act of creation. Quesnel observes, "Here are miracles upon miracles. The same power which filled the net with fishes in the midst of the sea, created others upon land, to show His disciples that it was not from want of power to give them fish that Christ asked for some, and ordered them to fish for them." v10.—[Jesus saith unto them, Bring, etc.] In this verse our Lord calls on the disciples to bring proof that, in casting the net at His command, they had not laboured in vain. It was the second saying that He spoke, we must remember, on this occasion. The first saying was, "Cast the net on the right side, and ye shall find." The second saying was, "Bring up the fish which ye have now caught," with a strong emphasis on the word "now." I believe our Lord's object was to show the disciples that the secret of success was to work at His command, and to act with implicit obedience to His word. It is as though He said, "Draw up the net; and see for yourselves how profitable it is to do what I tell you." Fish for food they did not want now, for that was provided for them. Proof of the power of Christ's blessing, and the importance of working under Him was the lesson to be taught, and as they drew up the net they would learn it. v11.—[Simon Peter went up, etc.] I see no reason for supposing, in this verse, that Peter alone drew up the net. I think it reasonable to suppose that he is named as leader of the party, and captain of the boat. But I believe that all the others helped him. The "going up" must mean that Peter went on board the little boat. Once more we see two miracles recorded in this verse. One miracle was the singularly large catch of fish which the net contained, a quantity evidently exceeding what was generally taken at one haul. The other miracle was the singular fact, that, in spite of this large quantity of fish, the net was "not broken." Miracle on miracle passed under the eyes of the astonished disciples.— Can we doubt that their minds recalled the miraculous draught of fishes on a former occasion, when "their net brake," and our Lord's words, "Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men;" and also his original saying, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men"? And can we doubt that some of them remembered the parable of the Kingdom of Heaven being like to "a net cast into the sea," and finally drawn to shore? (Luke 5:10. Matthew 4:19; Matthew 13:47.) Concerning the number one hundred and fifty-three, we know nothing, and it is useless to speculate. Some have thought that it refers to the languages, and some to the tribes or nations of the world,— each, it is alleged, about one hundred and fifty in number. But this is only guess-work. Yet it is worth remembering, that the strangers whom Solomon employed in building the first temple were precisely one hundred and fifty-three thousand and six hundred. Let the remark be taken for what it is worth. (2 Chronicles 2:17.) Pearce calls attention to a remark of Jerome, that Oppian, a Greek poet of Cilicia, in the second century, who wrote on fishing, "has given an account of the number of fishes known to him in his time, being exactly one hundred and fifty-three." This, at any rate, is curious. Scott makes the remark, that "this draught of fishes might be sold for a considerable sum of money, which the Apostles would have need of, on their return to Jerusalem before the day of Pentecost." There may be something in the idea. v12.—[Jesus saith...Come and dine.] The object of this gracious invitation seems to me to have been two-fold. It was meant partly to show our Lord's tender compassion for the weary bodies of His disciples. Though risen, He knew and felt for their wants, and would supply food for them when hungry and fatigued. It was meant partly to show that, though risen from the dead, with a glorified body, He would be on the same loving terms of familiarity and kindness as before with His disciples. They need not be frightened at Him. He had not forgotten them. He did not mean to keep them at distance. He was still one who would eat and drink with them, as a man eateth and drinketh with his friends. It is written, "I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with Me" (Revelation 3:20.) An old divine says, "Christ loveth to deal familiarly with men." The Greek word, rendered "dine," does not necessarily mean a mid-day meal. Parkhurst shows, on the contrary, from Xenophon, that it may mean a morning repast. As things are in England now, the translation is a peculiarly unfortunate one. Two or three centuries ago, when people dined at eleven o'clock, the unfitness of it would not have been so remarkable. The meaning evidently is, "Come and partake of a morning meal." [And none...durst ask...the Lord.] These words describe the state of mind in which the disciples were at this moment. They all felt convinced and satisfied that the Person before them was the Lord. They felt no doubt; and no one was the least disposed to say, "Who art thou?" Nevertheless they all felt awed and solemnized by His presence. A deep sense of the mysterious nature of their Lord, in consequence of His resurrection, filled their minds with an indefinable sensation of mingled embarrassment, reverence, and fear. Surely we can all understand this! Even when Joseph spoke lovingly to his brethren, and revealed himself to them, they were "troubled at his presence." (Genesis 45:3.) To sit, and eat, and drink, in the company with one who had risen from the dead, and appeared and disappeared after a supernatural manner, was no light thing. Who can wonder that they felt awed? Chrysostom says, "Seeing that His form was altered, and full of awfulness, they were amazed, and desired to ask something concerning it. But fear, and their knowledge that He was not some other but the same, checked the inquiry; and they only ate what He, with greater exertion of power than before, created for them. For here Jesus no more looked up to heaven, nor performed those human acts, showing that those also which He did formerly were done by way of condescension." v13.—[Jesus then cometh and taketh bread, etc.] This verse describes what took place at this meal, or as our Bible calls it, this dinner. Our Lord came forward, as the host and entertainer of the seven astonished disciples, and gave them bread and fish, as He had doubtless often done on former occasions, and perhaps at the same place. He doubtless meant to give the disciples one more plain proof that He had risen from the dead. Alone by the Sea of Galilee, in the open air, far from the fear of interruption, in broad daylight, He eats and drinks at a social meal. Could these seven men ever doubt from that day, if they had doubted before, that Jesus rose from the dead? He meant, furthermore, to encourage them to continue looking to Him, as they had done before, as a loving, familiar, sympathizing friend. Though risen, He would have them see practical proof that He could be touched with the feeling of their infirmities, and cared for their bodies as well as their souls. He meant, not least, to remind them of His great miracle of feeding the multitude with a few loaves and fishes. He would freshen their memory of that wondrous miracle, and show them that He would continue doing for them what He had formerly done for those who followed Him in the wilderness. Chrysostom here remarks, that we are not directly told that Jesus ate with the disciples, but that it is probable from Luke's words in Acts 10:41, that He did. "How," he remarks, "it is not ours to say. These things came to pass in too strange a manner. His nature did not even need food. It was an act of condescension in proof of the resurrection." (See Genesis 18:8.) v14.—[This is now the third time, etc.] In this verse John winds up the wonderful story he has just told, by one of his peculiar parenthetical comments. Concerning the meaning of the expression "third time," there has been, in my judgment, much needless dispute. No doubt it is perfectly true that this was not literally the third time that our Lord was seen by any one after His resurrection. On the contrary, we know of at least six different appearances before this one: viz., (1) to Mary Magdalene, (2) to Joanna and other women, (3) to Simon Peter, (4) to two disciples going to Emmaus, (5) to ten Apostles together, (6) to the eleven, for the special benefit of Thomas.— But it is no less true that this is strictly and literally the third time that Jesus appeared to any number of the disciples gathered together.— And it is also the third day, as Augustine remarks, that our Lord was pleased to appear at all. The first five appearances were all on the very same day when He rose from the dead. The sixth was a week afterwards, when He appeared to rebuke the unbelief of Thomas. And the appearance recorded in this chapter, though the seventh in number, took place on the third day only, that any one on earth saw Him after He rose. The question now remains to be considered. Has the narrative contained in these fourteen verses any deep spiritual and allegorical meaning? Were we intended to read the passage simply as a description of one of our Lord's appearances after His resurrection, and an account of one of His miracles? Or is the narrative a typical one? Is the passage intended to convey, under figures and symbols, great prophetical truths concerning the work of the ministry, and the history of the Church in every age, until the Lord comes? The question is a serious one, and demands serious consideration. (a) On the one hand, there is undeniable danger in the habit of seeking spiritual and allegorical meanings in the plain historical facts of God's Word. We may go so far in this direction, that, like Origen, and too often Augustine, we may lose sight of the primary simple meaning of Scripture, and turn the Bible into a mere book of riddles, which is useless to any common man, and useful only to those who have very fertile and fanciful imaginations. In fact, if we are always extracting figurative meanings out of Scripture, we may destroy the usefulness of the Book altogether. There must be some limit to the system of figurative interpretation. As a rule, I shrink intuitively from putting any sense on God's Word, which is not the obvious and plain sense of its language. Hooker's words are weighty and wise: "When a literal construction of a text will stand, that which is furthest from the letter is commonly the worst." (b) On the other hand, it is impossible to deny that all Christ's miracles were meant, more or less, to teach great spiritual truths, under allegories and figures; and the passage before us is a miracle. In addition to this, we must remember that the occasion of the miracle before us was a peculiarly solemn one,— that the Apostles needed certain great truths to be impressed on their attention with peculiar force, by facts as well as by words,— and that, on the eve of His ascension into heaven, our Lord would be exceedingly likely to remind them of their duty, and their position as ministers, by things under their eyes as well as by instruction in their ears. Finally let us try to put ourselves in the position of the seven Apostles on the occasion before us, and try to imagine what they thought and felt about the incidents of this remarkable morning. It is very hard to imagine that they saw nothing but a simple miracle in all that happened. I cannot think so.— I think their hearts must have burned within them, and old spiritual truths, which they had heard before, must have revived in their minds with fresh power, and been written on their souls as with the point of a diamond, never to be effaced. On the whole, then, I cannot avoid the conclusion, that the familiar verses before us probably contain, under symbolical facts, great spiritual truths. I think we are fairly justified in regarding the passage as a great parable, or vision, or allegory, intended to convey to the Church of Christ lessons for all time. And I am strengthened in this conclusion by the remarkable fact, that almost all commentators, of every school and in every age, have taken this view of the passage. Even Grotius, cold and rationalistic as his tone of exposition too frequently is, puts a figurative sense on several circumstances of the passage. Other expositors, of a more figurative and imaginative turn of mind, go into heights and depths, where I cannot pretend to follow them. I shall content myself with pointing out the more obvious spiritual lessons which I think the passage was probably meant to convey. (a) I think that Christ's remarkable appearance to the disciples, when they were in the act of fishing, was meant to remind them and the whole Church of the primary duty of ministers. They were doing work which was strikingly emblematic of their calling. They were to be "fishers of men." (b) I think the want of success in catching fish which the disciples had, until the Lord appeared, was meant to teach that without Christ's presence and blessing ministers can do nothing. (c) I think the marvellous success which attended the cast of the net, when Christ gave the command, was meant to teach that, when Christ is pleased to give success to ministers, nothing can prevent souls being brought into the Gospel net, converted and saved. (d) I think the drawing of the net to shore at last, was meant to remind the disciples and all ministers, of what will happen when the Lord comes again. The work of the Church will be completed, and the reckoning of results will take place. (e) I think the dinner prepared and provided for the disciples, when the net was drawn to the shore, was meant to remind ministers that there will be the great "marriage supper of the Lamb" at last, when Christ Himself shall welcome His faithful servants and ministers, and "come forth and serve them." (Luke 12:37.) (f) I think, beside this, that the respective positions of the disciples and Christ, when they first saw Him, may possibly be intended to represent the respective positions of Christ and His people during this dispensation. They were on the water of the sea. He was looking at them from the land. Just so Christ is in heaven looking at us, and we are voyaging over the troublous waters of this world. (g) Finally, I think that our Lord's sudden appearing on shore, when the morning broke, may possibly represent our Lord's second advent. "The night is far spent, and the day is at hand." When the morning dawns, Christ will appear. With these conjectures I leave the passage. They may not commend themselves to some readers. I only say that they appear to me to deserve consideration and reflection. These verses describe a remarkable conversation between our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Peter. To the careful Bible reader, who remembers the Apostle's thrice-repeated denial of Christ, the passage cannot fail to be a deeply interesting portion of Scripture. Well would it be for the Church, if all "after-dinner" conversations among Christians were as useful and edifying as this. We should notice first, in these verses, Christ's question to Peter: "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me?"— Three times we find the same inquiry made. It seems most probable that this three-fold repetition was meant to remind the Apostle of his own thrice-repeated denial. Once we find a remarkable addition to the inquiry: "Lovest thou Me more than these?" It is a reasonable supposition that those three words "more than these," were meant to remind Peter of his over-confident assertion: "Though all men deny Thee, yet will not I."— It is just as if our Lord would say, "Wilt thou now exalt thyself above others? Hast thou yet learned thine own weakness?" "Lovest thou Me" may seem at first sight a simple question. In one sense it is so. Even a child can understand love, and can say whether he loves another or not. Yet "Lovest thou Me" is, in reality, a very searching question. We may know much, and do much, and profess much, and talk much, and work much, and give much, and go through much, and make much show in our religion, and yet be dead before God, from want of love, and at last go down to the pit. Do we love Christ? That is the great question. Without this there is no vitality about our Christianity. We are no better than painted wax figures, lifeless stuffed beasts in a museum, sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. There is no life where there is no love. Let us take heed that there is some feeling in our religion. Knowledge, orthodoxy, correct views, regular use of forms, a respectable moral life,— all these do not make up a true Christian. There must be some personal feeling towards Christ. Feeling alone, no doubt, is a poor useless thing, and may be here to-day and gone to-morrow. But the entire absence of feeling is a very bad symptom, and speaks ill for the state of a man's soul. The men and women to whom Paul wrote his Epistles had feelings, and were not ashamed of them. There was One in heaven whom they loved, and that One was Jesus the Son of God. Let us strive to be like them, and to have some real feeling in our Christianity, if we hope to share their reward. We should notice, secondly, in these verses, Peter's answer to Christ's question. Three times we find the Apostle saying, "Thou knowest that I love Thee." Once we are told that he said, "Thou knowest all things." Once we have the touching remark made, that he was "grieved to be asked the third time." We need not doubt that our Lord, like a skillful physician, stirred up this grief intentionally. He intended to prick the Apostle's conscience, and to teach him a solemn lesson. If it was grievous to the disciple to be questioned, how much more grievous must it have been to the Master to be denied! The answer that the humbled Apostle gave, is the one account that the true servant of Christ in every age can give of his religion. Such an one may be weak, and fearful, and ignorant, and unstable, and failing in many things, but at any rate he is real and sincere. Ask him whether he is converted, whether he is a believer, whether he has grace, whether he is justified, whether he is sanctified, whether he is elect, whether he is a child of God,— ask him any one of these questions and he may perhaps reply that he really does not know!— But ask him whether he loves Christ, and he will reply, "I do." He may add that he does not love Him as much as he ought to do; but he will not say that he does not love Him at all. The rule will be found true with very few exceptions. Wherever there is true grace, there will be a consciousness of love towards Christ. What, after all, is the great secret of loving Christ? It is an inward sense of having received from Him pardon and forgiveness of sins. Those love much who feel much forgiven. He that has come to Christ by faith with his sins, and tasted the blessedness of free and full absolution, he is the man whose heart will be full of love towards his Savior. The more we realize that Christ has suffered for us, and paid our debt to God, and that we are washed and justified through His blood, the more we shall love Him for having loved us, and given Himself for us. Our knowledge of doctrines may be defective. Our ability to defend our views in argument may be small. But we cannot be prevented feeling. And our feeling will be like that of the Apostle Peter: "Thou, Lord, who knowest all things, Thou knowest my heart; and Thou knowest that I love Thee." We should notice, lastly, in these verses, Christ's command to Peter. Three times we find Him saying, "Feed" my flock: once, "Feed my lambs;" and twice, my "sheep." Can we doubt for a moment that this thrice-repeated charge was full of deep meaning? It was meant to commission Peter once more to do the work of an Apostle, notwithstanding his recent fall. But this was only a small part of the meaning. It was meant to teach Peter and the whole Church the mighty lesson, that usefulness to others is the grand test of love, and working for Christ the great proof of really loving Christ. It is not loud talk and high profession; it is not even impetuous, spasmodic zeal, and readiness to draw the sword and fight,— it is steady, patient, laborious effort to do good to Christ's sheep scattered throughout this sinful world, which is the best evidence of being a true-hearted disciple. This is the real secret of Christian greatness. It is written in another place, "Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister." (Matthew 20:26-28.) For ever let the parting charge of our blessed Master abide in our consciences, and come up in the practice of our daily lives. It is not for nothing, we may be sure, that we find these things recorded for our learning, just before He left the world. Let us aim at a loving, doing, useful, hard-working, unselfish, kind, unpretentious religion. Let it be our daily desire to think of others, care for others, do good to others, and to lessen the sorrow, and increase the joy of this sinful world. This is to realize the great principle which our Lord's command to Peter was intended to teach. So living, and so laboring to order our ways, we shall find it abundantly true, that "it is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35.) ================== Notes— v15.—[So when they had dined.] In the verses we now begin, we pass away from the region of allegory, parable, symbol, miracle, and vision, to a plain, unmistakable conversation between our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Peter. It is a conversation of a deeply interesting character, of which every letter deserves to be written in gold. He that supposes that any "John," except John the Apostle, could have written these three verses, gives little evidence of possessing a sound judgment. It is noteworthy that our Lord does not begin His conversation till the social meal was over. Trifling as this circumstance may seem, it deserves attention and carries a lesson. Nothing was so likely to set the Apostles at ease, and to prepare them to receive any word that fell from their Lord's lips with love and affection, as to deal familiarly and intimately with them, and let them "eat and drink" in His company. [Jesus saith to Simon Peter.] The object of our Lord in addressing Simon Peter in these verses should be carefully remembered, and not misunderstood. That there was a distinct object in singling him out from the seven disciples sitting round one Lord, and specially speaking to him, I cannot doubt. But what was that object? This question can only be answered by considering the peculiar character of Peter, and the peculiar circumstances of his history during the last day of our Lord's ministry, before the crucifixion. None had made so high a profession. None had spoken so confidently of his own strength. None had shown such instability in the hour of trial. None had fallen so sadly, by denying his Master three times. Remembering all this, I believe that our Lord had a special object in addressing Peter on this occasion; and I see a special wisdom in the address and conversation being recorded, as taking place before six witnesses. (a) I believe our Lord's first object was to remind Peter of his sad fall, through over-confidence, and want of watchfulness and prayer. He would have him know that, though raised, pardoned, and forgiven, he must never forget what had happened. Three times he had denied his Master. Three times he must be publicly asked whether he loved his Master. Hengstenberg strongly holds that Peter's fall was not at all in our Lord's mind in this remarkable conversation. But I cannot agree with him. (b) I believe our Lord's second object was, as Cyril remarks, to restore Peter to his full position as a trusted Apostle and minister, in the presence of six witnesses. The thought might possibly come across the minds of some Christians, in future days, that Peter forfeited his claim to be an Apostle and leader of the Church, by his thrice repeated denial of his Master. Our Lord in mercy guards against this possibility, by publicly commissioning Peter once more to do the work of a pastor in the Church. (c) I believe our Lord's third object was to teach Peter what should be the primary aim of an Apostle and minister. The true qualification for the ministerial office, he must learn, was not high profession of more courage and zeal than others, not loud talk, or even readiness to fight; but loving, patient usefulness to the souls of others, and diligent care for the sheep of Christ's flock. Calvin remarks, "The Evangelist now relates in what manner Peter was restored to that rank of honour from which he had fallen. The treacherous denial, which has been formerly described, had undoubtedly rendered him unworthy of the apostleship; for how could he be capable of instructing others in the faith, who had basely revolted from it? He had been made an Apostle, but it was along with Judas; and from the time that he acted the part of a coward and traitor, he had been deprived of the honour of apostleship. Now therefore the liberty, as well as the authority of teaching is restored to him, both of which he had lost through his own fault. And that the disgrace of his apostacy might not stand in the way, Christ blots out and destroys the remembrance of it. Such a restoration was necessary, both for Peter and his hearers; for Peter, that he might the more boldly execute his office, being assured of the calling with which Christ had again invested him; for his hearers, that the stain which attached to his person might not be the occasion of despising the Gospel. To us also, in the present day, it is of very great importance that Peter comes forth to us as a new man, from whom the disgrace that might have lessened his authority, is removed." The Roman Catholic theory, that our Lord specially addressed Peter, on this occasion, in order to mark him out as head of the Church, is one which I repudiate as preposterous, unreasonable, improbable, and utterly destitute of solid foundation. Neither here, nor elsewhere, is there a tittle of evidence to show that any primacy was ever intended to be given to Peter. On the contrary, the fact that our Lord specially appeared on one occasion to James alone, and that afterwards James was the presiding Apostle in the first Council at Jerusalem, would seem to indicate that, if He conferred primacy on any Apostle, He conferred it on James. But there is no proof that primacy was conferred on any one at all. Burgon says, "The profane and ridiculous pretensions of the Church of Rome are based in great part on the words of our Saviour addressed to Peter in this passage. The Papists assume (1) that He hereby appointed Peter to be His vicar upon earth; (2) that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome; (3) that Peter transmitted to the Bishops of the same See, in endless succession, his own supposed authority over the rest of Christendom. Each one of these assumptions is simply unfounded and untrue; opposed alike to Scripture and to reason; to the records of the Early Church and the opinions of the primitive Fathers. With such fictions, nevertheless, do Romish writers distort the true image of Christianity; disfiguring their commentaries therewith, and betraying by a reckless eagerness to obtrude their ambitious and unscriptural theory on all occasions, their secret misgivings as to its real value." [Simon, son of Jonas.] This mode of address, thrice repeated in this remarkable conversation, is only used by our Lord on this occasion, and when Peter first came to Him. (John 1:42.) I do not find that any Commentator gives a satisfactory explanation of it, and we are left to conjecture the reason, (a) Some think that our Lord purposely avoided the name Peter, in order to remind the Apostle how on a recent occasion he had shown himself not firm as a "rock," agreeably to his name, but weak as a reed. (b) Some think that our Lord meant to remind the Apostle of the memorable day when he first began to be a disciple, when Jesus said to him, "Thou art Simon, the son of Jona." (c) Some think that our Lord would remind the Apostle of the day when He said, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona," after the good confession which Peter had made. (Matthew 16:17.) (d) Some think that our Lord intended to remind Peter of the lowly origin from which he sprung, as son of one who, like Zebedee, in all probability, was only a humble fisherman, (e) Some think that the expression was only used to distinguish Simon Peter from the other Simon, who may possibly have been in company, as one of the two unnamed disciples. (John 21:2.) My own impression is, if I must give an opinion, that our Lord intended to carry Peter's mind back to the day when he first began to be a disciple of Christ, and to all the three years that had elapsed. It is as though He said, "Simon, son of Jonas, thou rememberest the day when thou didst first come to Me, and believe on Me as the Lamb of God. (John 1:35-42.) Thou knowest all that thou hast been, and all that thou hast gone through since that day. Once more I address thee by the same name with which I began. Before sending thee forth, and commissioning thee once more, in the presence of these six brethren, as a restored and trusted disciple, I ask thee, Dost thou love Me?" I throw out the thought as a conjecture. I see more in it than in any other view. [Lovest thou Me?] The question which Jesus asked of Peter was very simple, but very searching. It was simple, because it appealed to his feelings. Even a child knows what he feels, and whom he loves. If our Lord had asked,— "Dost thou believe? Art thou converted? Art thou elect? Hast thou faith? Hast thou grace? Art thou born again? Hast thou the Spirit? Art thou sanctified? Art thou justified?"— any one of these questions would have been perhaps very difficult to answer. But Peter could surely tell what he felt towards Christ.— At the same time the question was very searching. It is as though our Lord said, "Simon, I know all thy history. I know what thou hast done, and what thou hast been about, at the time of my betrayal and crucifixion, and I am ready to look over all, and pardon all. But one thing I must have in my disciples, and that is, a sincere and loving heart. I can look over want of knowledge and want of faith; but I must have love. Now, before these six brethren, before commissioning thee once more as an accredited and trustworthy Apostle, I ask thee solemnly, Dost thou love Me?" Cyril thinks that Peter had received such special mercy, pardon, and forgiveness, that he might be reasonably required to feel special love. [More than these.] This remarkable expression, which is only used in this verse, admits of three interpretations, (a) It may mean, Dost thou love Me more than thou lovest these thy brethren and friends around thee, and art thou willing to give them up for my sake, and follow Me alone, if need be? (b) It may mean, as Whitby says, Dost thou love Me more than these boats and fishing nets, among which thou hast spent so much of thy life, from which I did first call thee, and in the midst of which I find thee to-day? Art thou willing for my sake to give them all up, and devote thyself to preaching the Gospel? (c) It may mean, as the great majority of commentators think, Dost thou love Me more than thy brethren love Me? Thou rememberest a certain day when thou didst confidently say, "Though all men forsake Thee, yet will not I." Thou wast confident then, that thou wast more faithful than others. Will thou say that now? After all that has happened, art thou sure that thy heart is better than that of others?"— I decidedly prefer this last view to either of the others. I think it was meant to teach Peter, that the two grand qualifications for a faithful pastor were love and humility. Musculus observes, that Jesus did not ask Peter this thrice-repeated question, as if He was ignorant and desired to learn, but in order to remind him before others of his future duty. Bullinger suggests, that one reason among others why Jesus said, "more than these?" was Peter's forwardness to spring into the water, and come to shore, before the other six Apostles, who were in the boat with him. Rollock observes, on our Lord's merciful and loving dealing with Peter, "Rebukers should be lovers. If thou rebuke a man, love him; otherwise speak not to him, but close thy mouth. If thou season not thy rebukes with 'love,' then that which should have been as medicine will be turned into poison. They that would be instructors and admonishers should be lovers. Wherefore, whatever thou doest, do it in lenity and meekness. A bitter teacher is not worth a penny. This is what Paul requires when he says, 'The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle to all men.' (2 Timothy 2:24.) All should be in gentleness: teaching in gentleness, admonishing in gentleness. Wherefore? Because, if gentleness be lacking, there will be no edification, no comforting, no instruction." [He saith...Yea, Lord...knowest...I love Thee.] The answer of Simon Peter in this verse is a beautiful example of sincerity and humility. He appeals to our Lord's knowledge of his heart: "I may be very defective in knowledge, faith, courage, wisdom. I am a debtor to mercy and grace above many. Yet, Lord, thou knowest that, with all my faults and infirmities, I do love Thee." He does not venture to say a word about others. He does not pretend to compare his love with that of his brethren. If he has done so in time past he will do so no more.— "I know not whether others love Thee more or less than I do. I only know my own heart; and I feel sure that I love Thee." Let us carefully note that love to Christ is one of the simplest tests of a true Christian. He may not feel sure that he is converted, or that he repents or believes aright. But if he is real, he will be able to say that he loves Christ. [He saith...Feed my lambs.] Having received from Peter a public profession of his sincere love, our Lord proceeds to tell him how that love is to be shown, and to give him his commission for the future. He bids him prove the reality of his love by "feeding His lambs."— When our Lord said "feed," I believe He meant that Peter was to feed souls with the precious food of God's Word, to supply them with that bread of life which a man must eat or die, and to watch carefully and diligently over their spiritual interests, like a good shepherd watching his flock. When our Lord spoke of "lambs," I believe He meant the least, the weakest, and feeblest members of that flock which is His Church. It is as though Jesus said,— "Simon, if indeed thou dost love Me, know that the best proof of love is to devote thyself to the great work of shepherding souls. Live for others. Care for others. Minister to others. Do good to others. Seek out and search for my sheep in this wicked world, and think it not beneath thee to attend to the wants of the feeblest among them. Herein, remember, is true love. It does not consist in talking, professing, fighting, or seeking preeminence over others. It is best seen in walking in my steps. I came to seek and save that which was lost. I came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. Go and do likewise. He loves most who is most like Me." I cannot think that "lambs" in this place was intended to apply to young children, as it is often interpreted. All such interpretations I regard as nothing better than pious accommodations. I believe that "lambs," in contradistinction to "sheep," mean those who are young and weak in spiritual experience. Peter was not to neglect and despise them because weak. Peter remembered these ringing words, we may be sure, when he wrote in his Epistle, "Feed the flock of God that is among you." (1 Peter 5:2.) Augustine observes that Christ, both here and in the two following verses, says, "MY" and not "THY." The Church is His property, and not the property of ministers. Bullinger observes that Christ passes from the calling of the fisherman to that of the shepherd, as representing, more than any other callings, the ministerial office. v16.—[He saith to him again, etc.] This verse is simply a repetition of the preceding one, with three exceptions.— For one thing, the expression, "more than these," is omitted.— For another thing, the word which we render "feed," in the Greek is a wider, fuller word than the one employed in the preceding verse.— For another thing, our Lord speaks of His "sheep" instead of His "lambs." By "sheep" I believe our Lord meant those members of His flock who were of more advanced experience and strength in grace, than the class He had spoken of in the preceding verse. Both classes demanded the attention of a faithful pastor. The repetition of the inquiry was doubtless intended to rouse Peter's attention, and to impress the whole subject on his mind. Lightfoot thinks that the "threefold repetition,— feed, feed, feed, may most fitly apply to the threefold object of Peter's ministry: viz., the Gentiles, the Jews, and the dispersed ten tribes." But this seems to me fanciful. Bengel thinks it refers to the three periods of Peter's ministry. Whitby observes, "Those who argue for Peter's supremacy above other Apostles, from this passage, are vain in their imagination. If by these words Christ required Peter to feed all His sheep and lambs, it is certain he was wanting in his duty. He never exercised an act of supremacy over the rest of the Apostles; but being sent by them, obeyed (Acts 8:14), and being reproved by Paul, held his peace (Galatians 2:11-16), and was so far from feeding all Christ's sheep, that he never fed any of the province of Paul." v17.—[He saith unto him the third time, etc.] This verse again is a repetition of the two preceding verses, but contains two points of difference. For one thing we are told that "Peter was grieved," on being asked the same question three times. For another thing, Peter uses stronger language when he appeals to our Lord's knowledge of his heart. "Lord," he says, "Thou knowest all things." I cannot for a moment doubt that our Lord asked Peter this remarkable question three times, in order to remind him that he had denied Him thrice. Our sins ought never to be forgotten by us, though they are wiped out of the book of God's remembrance. The very "grief" which Peter felt at being thrice asked about his love, was intended to do him good. It was meant to remind him that if he was grieved to be asked thrice, "Lovest thou Me?" how much more must his Master have been grieved when he thrice denied Him! Whitby observes, "Here is an argument that Christ, in Peter's judgment, was truly God. He says, 'Thou knowest all things.' It is to God alone that the secrets of all hearts lie open." There are little nice distinctions in the original Greek of these three verses, in the words that are used, which the English language cannot convey. But they deserve notice, and are not without meaning. Two different words are used to express our one word "love." One of these two words means a higher, calmer, nobler kind of love than the other. This is the word which our Lord uses in the fifteenth and sixteenth verses, where He asks the question, "Lovest thou Me?"— The other of the two words means a more passionate and lower kind of love. This is the word which Peter always uses when he says, "I love thee!" and our Lord once uses it in the seventeenth verse.— Again: two different words are employed to express our one English word "feed." One means simply "provide food and pasture," and is used in the fifteenth and seventeenth verses. The other means not only "provide food," but "govern, lead, direct, and generally do the work of a shepherd." Some of the Roman Catholic writers try to make out that "lambs" in this remarkable passage mean the laity, and "sheep" the clergy; and that supremacy over clergy and laity alike is intended, by these words, to be conferred on Peter and his successors at Rome! Archbishop Trench (on Miracles) justly condemns this interpretation, as "groundless and trifling." He observes, "The commission should at least have run, 'Feed my sheep and feed my shepherds,' if any such conclusion could be drawn from Christ's words, though an infinite deal would still remain to be proved." The lessons which the whole passage is meant to teach the Church of Christ, are many and deep, and have been far too much neglected in every age. I can only indicate them, and then leave the reader to work them out in his own mind. (a) Love to Christ's person is one of the most important graces that can adorn a Christian, and specially a minister. Without it, correct doctrinal views, zeal for proselytizing, knowledge, eloquence, liberality, diligence in visiting the sick and relieving the poor, are worth very little, and will do very little good. With it, God is pleased to look over many infirmities. A minister may be somewhat defective in some of his views, and even in some of his proceedings, but if he loves Christ and has a warm heart, God will seldom allow him to lack a blessing. Hengstenberg shrewdly remarks, that Christ's emphatical question about love to Himself, and omission of any question about love to God, is strong indirect proof of Christ's divinity. (b) True love to Christ is chiefly to be seen in usefulness to others, in doing as Christ did, in walking in His steps, in labouring to do good in this bad world. He that talks of loving Christ, and idles on through life, never trying to do good to others, is deceiving himself, and will find at length that he had better never have been born. (c) A vast amount of so-called Christianity is perfectly useless in the sight of God, and will only add to people's condemnation. Church-goers and chapel-goers, who are content to attend services and hear sermons, but know nothing of fervent love to Christ's person, and never lay themselves out to imitate Him, are in the broad way that leads to destruction. Rollock observes, "A profane man or woman will say, 'I love God;' but if it manifest not itself in an action, thou art but a liar, and lovest Him not. Faith and love must ever utter them selves in good actions. Hast thou gotten a heart, hands, and feet? Do some good. Otherwise, if thou doest never a good deed, thy profession of faith and love is vain." He also says,— "The pastor is not worth a penny who strives not to get a sense of the love of Christ into his heart. There are so many difficulties and impediments cast before a pastor when he is about to discharge his duty, that he never can be able to overcome them, except he both love the Lord, and be sensible of the Lord's love to him. If the Apostles and martyrs had not loved Jesus exceedingly, they would soon have fainted." Leighton observes, "Love is the great endowment of a true pastor of Christ's flock. He says not to Peter, 'Art thou wise? or learned? or eloquent?' but 'Lovest thou Me?' Then, 'feed.' Love to Christ begets love to His people's souls, which are so precious to Him, and a care of feeding them." Scott observes, "Those who have been greatly tempted, and have had much humbling experience of their own sinfulness, and have had much forgiven them, generally prove the most tender, compassionate, and attentive pastors, of weak, bruised, and trembling believers." (d) The true test of reality in our religion is to be able to appeal confidently to God's knowledge of our hearts. It matters nothing what friends, and relatives, and fellow-worshippers, may think and say of us. They may praise us, when we do not deserve it, or condemn us, when we are innocent. It matters nothing. If we have the witness of our own hearts, that we can appeal to Jesus, the Searcher of hearts, and say, "Thou, who knowest all things, knowest that I love Thee," we need not be afraid. (e) If we really and truly feel love to Christ, we may thank God and take courage. Of our own faith, and grace, and conversion, and sanctification, we are poor judges. But do we really and sincerely feel that we love Christ? That is the great question. The very existence of such love is a good sign. We should not love Christ, if we had not got something from Him. Brentius remarks that Peter's charge to the elders, in his epistle, clearly shows that our Lord's thrice-repeated charge, "Feed," was not meant for him only, as the Romanists say, but for all ministers of the Church of Christ, without exception. "The elders which are among you, I exhort:— Feed the flock of God." (1 Peter 5:1.) These verses form the conclusion of John's Gospel, and bring to an end the most precious book in the Bible. The man is much to be pitied who can read the passage without serious and solemn feelings. It is like listening to the parting words of a friend, whom we may possibly not see again. Let us reverently consider the lessons which this Scripture contains. We learn, for one thing, from these verses, that the future history of Christians, both in life and death, is foreknown by Christ. The Lord tells Simon Peter, "When thou art old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not." These words, without controversy, were a prediction of the manner of the Apostle's death. They were fulfilled in after days, it is commonly supposed, when Peter was crucified as a martyr for Christ's sake. The time, the place, the manner, the painfulness to flesh and blood of the disciple's death, were all matters foreseen by the Master. The truth before us is eminently full of comfort to a true believer. To obtain foreknowledge of things to come would, in most cases, be a sorrowful possession. To know what was going to befall us, and yet not to be able to prevent it, would make us simply miserable. But it is an unspeakable consolation to remember, that our whole future is known and fore-arranged by Christ. There is no such thing as luck, chance, or accident, in the journey of our life. Everything from beginning to end is foreseen,— arranged by One who is too wise to err, and too loving to do us harm. Let us store up this truth in our minds, and use it diligently in all the days of darkness through which we may yet have to pass. In such days we should lean back on the thought, "Christ knows this, and knew it when He called me to be His disciple." It is foolish to repine and murmur over the troubles of those whom we love. We should rather fall back on the thought that all is well done. It is useless to fret and be rebellious, when we ourselves have bitter cups to drink. We should rather say, "This also is from the Lord: He foresaw it, and would have prevented it, if it had not been for my good." Happy are those who can enter into the spirit of that old saint, who said, "I have made a covenant with my Lord, that I will never take amiss anything that He does to me." We may have to walk sometimes through rough places, on our way to heaven. But surely it is a resting, soothing reflection, "Every step of my journey was foreknown by Christ." We learn, secondly, in these verses, that a believer's death is intended to glorify God. The Holy Ghost tells us this truth in plain language. He graciously interprets the dark saying, which fell from our Lord's lips about Peter's end. He tells us that Jesus spake this, "signifying by what death he should glorify God." The thing before us is probably not considered as much as it ought to be. We are so apt to regard life as the only season for honoring Christ, and action as the only mode of showing our religion, that we overlook death, except as a painful termination of usefulness. Yet surely this ought not so to be. We may die to the Lord as well as live to the Lord; we may be patient sufferers as well as active workers. Like Samson, we may do more for God in our death, than ever we did in our lives. It is probable that the patient deaths of our martyred Reformers had more effect on the minds of Englishmen, than all the sermons they preached, and all the books they wrote. One thing, at all events, is certain,— the blood of the English martyrs was the seed of the Church. We may glorify God in death, by being ready for it whenever it comes. The Christian who is found like a sentinel at his post, like a servant with his loins girded and his lamp burning, with a heart packed up and ready to go, the man to whom sudden death, by the common consent of all who knew him, is sudden glory,— this, this is a man whose end brings glory to God.— We may glorify God in death, by patiently enduring its pains. The Christian whose spirit has complete victory over the flesh, who quietly feels the pins of his earthly tabernacle plucked up with great bodily agonies, and yet never murmurs or complains, but silently enjoys inward peace,— this, this again, is a man whose end brings glory to God.— We may glorify God in death, by testifying to others the comfort and support that we find in the grace of Christ. It is a great thing, when a mortal man can say with David, "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." (Psalms 23:4.) The Christian who, like Standfast in "Pilgrim's Progress," can stand for a while in the river, and talk calmly to his companions, saying, "My foot is fixed sure: my toilsome days are ended,"— this, this is a man whose end brings glory to God. Deaths like these leave a mark on the living, and are not soon forgotten. Let us pray, while we live in health, that we may glorify God in our end. Let us leave it to God to choose the where, and when, and how, and all the manner of our departing. Let us only ask that it may "glorify God." He is a wise man who takes John Bunyan's advice, and keeps his last hour continually in mind, and makes it his company-keeper. It was a weighty saying of John Wesley, when one found fault with the doctrines and practices of the Methodists,— "At any rate our people die well." We learn, thirdly, in these verses, that whatever we may think about the condition of other people, we should think first about our own. When Peter inquired curiously and anxiously about the future of the Apostle John, he received from our Lord an answer of deep meaning: "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou Me." Hard to understand as some part of that sentence may be, it contains a practical lesson which cannot be mistaken. It commands every Christian to remember his own heart first, and to look at home. Of course our blessed Lord does not wish us to neglect the souls of others, or to take no interest in their condition. Such a state of mind would be nothing less than uncharitable selfishness, and would prove plainly that we had not the grace of God. The servant of Christ will have a wide, broad heart, like his Master, and will desire the present and eternal happiness of all around him. He will long and labor to lessen the sorrows, and to increase the joys, of every one within his reach, and, as he has opportunity, to do good to all men. But, in all his doing, the servant of Christ must never forget his own soul. Charity, and true religion, must both begin at home. It is vain to deny that our Lord's solemn caution to His impetuous disciple is greatly needed in the present day. Such is the weakness of human nature, that even true Christians are continually liable to run into extremes. Some are so entirely absorbed in their own inward experience, and their own heart's conflict, that they forget the world outside. Others are so busy about doing good to the world, that they neglect to cultivate their own souls. Both are wrong, and both need to see a more excellent way; but none perhaps do so much harm to religion as those who are busy-bodies about others' salvation, and at the same time neglecters of their own. From such a snare as this may the ringing words of our Lord deliver us! Whatever we do for others (and we never can do enough), let us not forget our own inner man. Unhappily, the Bride, in Canticles, is not the only person who has cause to complain: "They made me keeper of the vineyards; but my own vineyard I have not kept." (Song of Son 1:6.) We learn, lastly, from these verses, the number and greatness of Christ's works during His earthly ministry. John concludes his Gospel with these remarkable words, "There are many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."— Of course we must not torture these words, by pressing them to an excessively literal interpretation. To suppose that the Evangelist meant the world could not hold the material volumes which would be written, is evidently unreasonable and absurd. The only sensible interpretation must be a spiritual and figurative one. As much of Christ's sayings and doings is recorded as the mind of man can take in. It would not be good for the world to have more. The human mind, like the body, can only digest a certain quantity. The world could not contain more, because it would not. As many miracles, as many parables, as many sermons, as many conversions, as many words of kindness, as many deeds of mercy, as many journeys, as many prayers, as many warnings, as many promises, are recorded, as the world can possibly require. If more had been recorded they would have been only thrown away. There is enough to make every unbeliever without excuse, enough to show every inquirer the way to heaven, enough to satisfy the heart of every honest believer, enough to condemn man if he does not repent and believe, enough to glorify God. The largest vessel can only contain a certain quantity of liquid. The mind of all mankind would not appreciate more about Christ, if more had been written. There is enough and to spare. This witness is true. Let us deny it if we can. And now let us close the Gospel of John with mingled feelings of deep humility and deep thankfulness. We may well be humble when we think how ignorant we are, and how little we comprehend of the treasures which this Gospel contains. But we may well be thankful, when we reflect how clear and plain is the instruction which it gives us about the way of salvation. The man who reads this Gospel profitably, is he who "believes that Jesus is the Christ, and, believing, has life through His Name." Do we so believe? Let us never rest till we can give a satisfactory answer to that question! ================== Notes— v18.—[Verily, verily, I say unto thee, etc.] In this verse our Lord forewarns the Apostle Peter, what death he must expect to be the conclusion of his ministry. After restoring him to his office, and commissioning him to be a pastor, He tells him plainly what his end will be. He holds out no prospect of temporal ease and an earthly kingdom. On the contrary, He bids him look forward to a violent death. If he shows his love by feeding his Master's sheep, he must not be surprised if he is made partaker of his Master's sufferings. And so it was. Peter lived to be persecuted, beaten, imprisoned, and at length slain for Christ's sake. It happened exactly as his Master had predicted. Most ecclesiastical historians say that he suffered martyrdom at Rome, in one of the first persecutions, and was crucified with his head downwards. Melancthon remarks that Peter, like most Jews, was probably expecting that, after our Lord's resurrection, He would take to Himself His kingdom, and reign in glory with His disciples. Jesus warns him that he must expect nothing of the kind. Tribulation, and not glory, was the prospect before him in this world. It is fair to say that some learned writers deny entirely that Peter ever was at Rome, and consequently deny the truth of the ecclesiastical tradition, that he was crucified there with his head downward. Calovius gives a long passage from Casaubon, maintaining this view. Whether it was so, or not, does not affect the passage before us. In any case, wherever he died, there is no reason to doubt that Peter died a violent death. The expression, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee," is thoroughly characteristic of John's Gospel. We cannot doubt that Peter would remember how solemn were the former occasions when our Lord used this phrase, and would see a peculiar solemnity in the words of this verse. Specially would Peter remember the night when our Lord was betrayed, when his Master said to him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied Me thrice." (John 13:38.) The expression, "When thou wast young," is commonly thought to indicate that Peter was now an old man, when these words were spoken. Perhaps too much stress is laid on the words, especially considering the context. I think the safer plan is to interpret it as meaning, "When thou wast a younger man than thou art now." The expression, "Thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest," appears to me a general phrase, denoting the freedom from restraint and independence of movement, which Peter enjoyed, when he followed his calling as a young fisherman, before he was called to be a disciple and Apostle. I cannot, like some commentators, see any allusion to Peter's recent action, when he put his "fisher's coat about him," cast himself into the sea, and waded to the shore. I rather regard it as a proverbial phrase. A young Jewish fisherman, when inclined to go here or there, would, according to oriental custom, gird up his loins and Walk off upon his journey, at the pleasure of his own will. "This," says our Lord to Peter, "thou didst use to do when a young man." The expression, "When thou shalt be old," seems to denote at any rate that Peter would be an older man than he then was, before he died, and would suffer martyrdom in his old age. It certainly condemns the idea entertained by many, that the Apostle Peter was an aged man, when our Lord left the world. Old age, in his case, is clearly represented as a thing future. The expression, "Thou shalt stretch forth thine hands, and another shall gird thee," is regarded by almost all commentators, as an intimation of the manner of Peter's death. He was to stretch forth his hands at the command of another, that is, of an executioner, and, in all probability, to be bound by that executioner to the cross on which he was to suffer. If this be a correct interpretation of the words, it certainly favours the idea that crucified persons were "bound," as well as "nailed," to the cross. The phrase "gird" may possibly refer to a custom of girding a person's loins, and putting cords round his middle before crucifying him. The contrast would then be more natural between a man girding up his own loins to walk, and another girding him round the loins for execution. The expression "carry thee whither thou wouldest not," must mean that the executioner having bound Peter to the cross, would carry him so bound to the place where the cross would be reared up, after a manner which would be repugnant and painful to flesh and blood. It cannot, of course, mean that Peter would object to his punishment and resist it. It can only mean that his punishment would be one which must needs be a heavy trial to his natural will. Brentius thinks that "another," in this sentence, refers to "Nero," or the "executioner." We should note, in this wonderful prophecy, the unhesitating positiveness and decision with which our Lord speaks of things to come. He knew perfectly all the circumstances of His Apostle's death, long before it took place. We should note how faithfully and unreservedly our Lord tells Peter what the consequences of his apostleship would be. He does not tempt him onwards by promises of earthly success and temporal rewards. Suffering, death, and the cross, are plainly exhibited before the eyes of his mind, as the end to which he must look forward. We should note how even our Lord intimates that suffering is painful to flesh and blood. He speaks of it as a thing that Peter will most naturally shrink from:— "Thou wouldest not." Our Lord does not expect us to "enjoy" bodily pain and suffering, though He asks us to be willing to endure it for His sake. Chrysostom observes, "Christ here speaks of natural feeling, and the necessity of the flesh, and shows that the soul is unwillingly torn away from the body. Though the will was firm, even then nature would be found in fault. For no one lays aside the body without feeling; God having suitably ordained this in order that violent deaths might not be many. For if, even as things are now, the devil has been able to effect this, and has led thousands (by suicide) to precipices and pits, had not the soul felt such an affection for the body, many would have rushed to this under any common discouragement." Augustine observes, "No man likes to die: a state of feeling so natural, that not even old age had power to remove it from blessed Peter, to whom Jesus said, 'Thou shalt be led whither thou wouldest not.' For our consolation, we may remember, that even our Saviour took this state of feeling on Himself, saying, 'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me!'"— He also says, "Were there nothing, or little of irksomeness in death, the glory of the martyr would not be so great as it is." Calvin observes, "This must be understood as referring to the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit, which believers feel within themselves. We cannot obey God in a manner so free and unrestrained, as not to be drawn, as it were, by ropes, in an opposite direction, by the world and the flesh. Besides, it ought to be remembered that the dread of death is naturally implanted in us; for to wish to be separated from the body is revolting to nature."— Again he says, "Even the martyrs experienced a fear of death similar to our own, so that they could not gain a triumph over the enemies of truth but by contending with themselves." Beza remarks that on one occasion, when Peter and John had been beaten and threatened by the Jewish Council, "they departed, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His Name." (Acts 5:41.) The expression, "whither thou wouldest not," can therefore only refer to the natural will of flesh and blood. Flesh will feel. Holy Baxter in his last illness used to say, "I groan; but I do not grumble." When Bishop Ridley was being chained to the stake, before he was burned, as a martyr, at Oxford, he said to the smith who was knocking in the staple, "Good fellow, knock it in hard; for the flesh will have its way." Ambrose, quoted by Jansenius, mentions a legend that when Peter was in prison at Rome before his martyrdom, he escaped, and was going out of the city. Then Jesus Christ Himself appeared to him in a vision, and on Peter asking, "Whither goest thou?" replied, "To Rome, to be crucified again." On hearing this, Peter returned to prison. The whole story is apocryphal, and destitute of historical foundation. But it shows the current of feeling among early Christians. v19.—[This spake He...what death...glorify God.] We have here one of John's peculiar parenthetical comments, and one for which we may be specially thankful. Who can tell what Commentators might have made of our Lord's prediction to Peter, if John had not been mercifully inspired to tell us that Jesus spoke of his death? The expression "what death" means "what kind of death," and is generally considered to indicate that the preceding verse describes death by crucifixion. The expression "glorify God" is peculiarly interesting, because it teaches that a Christian may bring glory to God by his death, as well as by his life. He does so when he bears it patiently, does not murmur, exhibits sensible peace, enjoys evident hope of a better world, testifies to others of the truth and consolation of the Gospel, and leaves broad evidences of the reality of his religion behind him. He that so ends glorifies God. The deaths of Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, Bradford, Rogers, Rowland Taylor, and many other English martyrs, in the days of Queen Mary, were said to have done more good even than their lives, and to have had immense influence in helping forward the Protestant Reformation. [And when...this...saith...Follow Me.] The precise meaning of this short and emphatic phrase is not very plain. (a) Some think that it must be interpreted literally, and that our Lord simply meant, "Follow Me in the direction where I am now going. We have tarried here long enough. Let us be going." At first sight this seems a thin and weak interpretation. But before we reject it entirely, we should carefully observe the language of the next verse. (b) Some think that "Follow Me" must be interpreted spiritually, and that our Lord used the expression as a kind of watchword for Peter's course in life from that day forward. "Walk in my steps. Do as I have done. Follow Me whithersoever I lead thee, even though it be to prison and death." I see no reason why we should not adopt both views. There is such a depth and fulness in our Lord's sayings, that I think we may safely do so. I therefore think it most probable that our Lord not only meant, "Arise, and follow Me now;" but also meant, "Always follow Me through life, whatever be the consequences." After all, Christ's three great words to Christians are, "Come to Me,— Learn of Me,— and Follow Me." (Matthew 11:28-29.) Is there not in the words, "Follow Me," a latent reference to the remarkable saying of our Lord to Peter, on the night that Peter denied Him thrice: "Whither I go, thou canst not follow Me now; but thou shalt follow Me afterwards." (John 13:36.) v20.—[Then Peter, turning, seeth, etc.] This verse brings in the Apostle John himself, described with more than usual feeling and particularity, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who leaned on his breast at supper," as if to prevent the possibility of mistake. The expressions, "turning," and "following," seem to me to place it beyond doubt, that our Lord began to move away from the scene of the social meal, when He said, "Follow Me." No other view can explain them. There was a movement in a certain direction. As our Lord moved away, Peter followed Him. As he followed, Peter turned round, and saw John following also. After John, I believe, the other five disciples followed also, or else they could hardly have heard the remarkable saying about "tarrying till I come," which they evidently did hear. Tittman suggests that "When Peter saw John following he was displeased, as Jesus had ordered Peter alone to follow, with the intention of saying something to him apart. He therefore asked why Jesus permitted John to follow unbidden."— He then thinks, if we adopt this interpretation, that the remarkable words of the following verse may only mean,— "If I wish him to remain with the other disciples until I return to them, that is no business of thine. Just follow Me."— This however seems to me rather a tame interpretation. Stier observes, "There was something wrong at first in Peter's act of turning himself. He was commanded to follow, and not to look round. Thus there was certainly an uncalled-for, and not artless, looking aside, a side-glance once more of comparison with others! After his deep humiliation here is still some light trace of the ancient Simon." v21.—[Peter seeing...Lord...what...this man do.] The Greek words of Peter's question would be literally rendered, "Lord: and this man what?" The precise meaning and object of the question are a point which has been much disputed. (a) Some think that the question was entirely one of brotherly love, interest, and affection. They regard the inquiry as one which arose from Peter's tender feeling toward John, as the disciple whom he loved most among the Apostles. He would fain know what was to be the future lot of his beloved friend and brother. (b) Some think that the question was one of unseemly curiosity. They regard it as one which Peter ought not to have asked. If our Lord did not volunteer any prediction about John, Peter ought not to have made any inquiry. (c) Some think, as Flacius, that there was a latent jealousy in Peter's question, and that he seemed to suspect that John, not having denied Christ, would die an easier death than himself! I cannot think this for a moment. My own belief is that there is truth in both the two first views. Our Lord's reply to Peter, recorded in the next verse, certainly indicates to my mind that Peter ought not to have been so forward to ask. On the other hand, I should be sorry to say that Peter's inquiry arose entirely out of curiosity, when I mark Peter's unvarying connection with John on all occasions, and evident brotherly love towards him. In feeling concern about John's future, after hearing about his own, Peter was not to blame. Grace does not require us to be cold and unfeeling about our friends. But in the manner of Peter's inquiry there certainly seems to have been something to blame. Is there not about it a little touch of the old over-readiness to talk of others? It was once, "Though all men,— all others,— forsake Thee yet will not I." It is now, "If I am to die a violent death, what are others to do?" It is certainly my own impression that Peter's question had special reference to John's end: "If I am to die a violent death, what is to be the end of my brother John?" Leighton, quoted by Burgon, remarks, "This was a transient stumbling in one who, but lately recovered of a great disease, did not walk firmly. But it is the common track of most, to wear out their days with impertinent inquiries. There is a natural desire in men to know the things of others, and neglect their own; and to be more concerned about things to come than things present." Henry remarks, "Peter seems more concerned for another than for himself. So apt are we to be busy in other men's matters, but negligent in the concerns of our own souls,— quick-sighted abroad, but dim-sighted at home,— judging others, and prognosticating what they will do, when we have enough to do to prove our own works, and understand our own ways. Peter seems more concerned about events than about duty. John was younger than himself, and in the course of nature likely to survive him. 'Lord,' he says, 'what times shall he be reserved for?' Whereas, if God, by his grace, enable us to persevere to the end, and finish well, and get safely to heaven, we need not ask, 'What shall be the lot of those that shall come after us?' Is it not well if peace and truth shall be in my days? Scripture predictions must be eyed for the direction of our conscience, not for the satisfying of our curiosity." It is a curious fact worth remembering, that John was one of the only two Apostles, whose future lot had already been spoken of by Christ. "He shall drink of the cup that I drink of, and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with." (Mark 10:39.) v22.—[Jesus saith unto him, If I will, etc.] Our Lord's answer to Peter can only be taken, in my judgment, as a rebuke. It was meant to teach the Apostle that he must first attend to his own duty, mind his own soul, fulfil his own course, and leave the future of other brethren in the hands of a wise and merciful Saviour. He must not pry too curiously into God's counsels concerning John.— What good would it do him to know whether John was to live a long life or a short one, to die a violent death or a natural one? Our Lord seems to say, "Leave off inquiring about thy brother's future lot. Thou knowest that he is one of my sheep, and as such shall never perish, and is in safe keeping. What is the rest to thee? Have faith to believe that all will be well done about him. Look to thine own soul, and be content to follow Me."— I cannot help seeing a latent resemblance between this place and the well-known passage at the end of Daniel's prophecy. "Then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And He said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end."— "Go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days." (Daniel 12:8-9, Daniel 12:13.) Theophylact suggests that our Lord saw that Peter was vehemently attached to John, and unwilling to be separated from him, and therefore meant to teach him that he must do his own work and follow Christ, wherever He might lead him, even though separation from John might be the consequence. After all we must take care that we do not omit the special point of our Lord's words. What our Lord rebukes is not general concern about the souls of others, but over-anxiety and restless curiosity about the future of our friends. Such over-anxiety indicates want of faith: we ought to be willing to leave their future in God's hands. To know their future would, in all probability, not make us one jot more happy. I can imagine nothing more miserable than to see in the distance tribulation and sorrow coming on our friends, and not to be able to avert it. Of what use would it have been to Peter, to know that his beloved brother John would one day be cast into a caldron of boiling oil, at Ephesus, during a persecution? What good would it have done Peter, to know that John would spend years of weary captivity on the Isle of Patmos, and finally outlive all the company of the Apostles, and be left last and latest on the stormy sea of this troublous world? To know all this would not have done Peter the slightest good, and would more likely have added to his own sorrow. Wisely and well did our Lord say, "What is that to thee?" Wisely and well does He teach us not to be over-anxious about the future of our children, our relatives, and our friends. Far better for us, and far happier, to have faith in God, and to let the great unknown future alone. Burkitt observes, "There are two great varieties in men with reference to knowledge. The one is a neglect to know what it is our duty to know. The other is a curiosity to know what it doth not belong to us to know." In any case, the words "Follow Me" should always teach us that our first duty in religion is to look to our own souls, and to take heed that we ourselves follow Christ, and walk with God. Whatever others may do or not do, suffer or not suffer, our own duty is clear and plain. People who are always looking at others, and considering others, and shaping their own course accordingly, commit a great mistake. Of all weak and foolish reasons assigned by some for not coming to the Lord's Supper, the weakest perhaps is that very common one,— the conduct of others who are communicants! To such persons the words of our Lord apply with emphatical force, "What is that to thee? Follow thou Me." The words of our Lord, "If I will that he tarry till I come," are a deep and mysterious saying, and in every age of the Church have received different interpretations. (a) Some, as Gerhard, Maldonatus, and Wordsworth, hold that Jesus meant, "If I will that he tarry a long time on earth, lingering here long after thou art gone, until I come for him at death, what is that to thee?"— I cannot, however, admit this interpretation for a moment. Death and the coming of Christ are two totally different things, and it is an entire mistake to confound them, as people often do (with very good intentions), in selecting texts for tombstones, as part of epitaphs. There is not a single passage in the New Testament, where the coming of the Lord means death. Moreover, the very next verse in this chapter seems to place the two things in strong contrast, as not the same. (b) Some actually hold that Jesus meant that the Apostle John was never to die at all, but to remain alive until the second advent! This, however, is a wild and preposterous interpretation, which will satisfy no sober mind. Moreover, it is contradicted by the whole tenor of ecclesiastical history. All early writers, of any weight and authority, declare that John died a natural death in extreme old age. Theophylact mentions a strange tradition that John is kept alive somewhere, and is to be slain, together with Elias, by Antichrist, when he appears! (c) Some, as Grotius, Hammond, Lightfoot, Whitby, Scott, Alford, and Ellicott, hold that Jesus meant by His coming, not His second advent at the end of the world, but His coming spiritually in judgment, for the punishment of the Jews, the destruction of the temple, and the overthrow of the whole Jewish dispensation by the Romans. I cannot see this at all. I find no clear proof in the New Testament, that the overthrow of the Jewish dispensation is ever called the "coming of the Lord." Moreover, it is an awkward fact, that it is commonly agreed that the Apostle John lived for many years after Jerusalem was taken, and the temple burned by Titus. Gerhard declares positively, that there is not one instance in Scripture of the destruction of Jerusalem being called the "coming of the Lord." (d) Bengel and Stier think it means that John was to tarry till the Lord came to reveal to him the visions recorded in the Book of Revelation. (e) Some, as Hutcheson and Trench, think that Jesus did not mean to predict anything particular about John's future, but only used a general hypothetical expression. "Supposing I do will that he stay till I come, what is that to thee? I do not say that I do will him to stay. But supposing it is my will, this is no affair of thine, and it becometh thee not to inquire." The question is one that will never be settled, and the sentence seems purposely left under a veil of mystery. If I must give an opinion, I decidedly lean to the last of the five views which I have stated. v23.—[Then went this saying, etc.] In this verse John carefully describes the rise of the earliest ecclesiastical tradition. He says that it became a common saying among the brethren, that he was not to die. Some very likely took it into their heads that, like Enoch and Elijah, he was to be translated, and never see death, but pass into glory without dying. The Apostle takes pains to point out that Jesus never said that he was not to die, and had only supposed the possibility of his "tarrying till He came." To my own mind his manner of stating the point is strongly confirmatory of the view I have already supported: viz., that our Lord only used a hypothetical expression, and did not at all intend to make a positive prediction. We should carefully notice in this passage how easy it is for traditions to begin; and how soon, even with the best intentions, unfounded reports originate among religious men. Nothing is more unsatisfactory, nothing more uncertain, nothing more destitute of solid foundation, than that huge mass of matter which the Roman Catholic Church has heaped together, and professes to respect, called "Catholic tradition." The moment a Christian departs from God's Word written, and allows "Catholic tradition" any authority, he plunges into a jungle of uncertainty, and will be happy if he does not make shipwreck of his faith altogether. Flacius observes, that not observing our Lord's "if" gave rise to a tradition! A single word omitted in a text may do harm. Henry remarks, "Let us learn here the uncertainty of human tradition, and the folly of building faith upon it. Here was a tradition, an apostolical tradition, a saying that went abroad among the brethren. It was early; it was common; it was public; and yet it was false. How little then are those unwritten traditions to be relied upon, which the Council of Trent has decreed to be worthy to be received with a veneration and pious affection equal to that which is owing to Holy Scripture." Henry also remarks, "Let us learn the aptness of men to misinterpret the sayings of Christ. The grossest errors have sometimes shrouded themselves under the umbrage of incontestable truth, and the Scriptures themselves have been wrested by the unlearned and unstable. We must not think it strange if we hear the sayings of Christ misinterpreted, and quoted to patronize the errors of antichrist." The Greek phrase which we render "should not die," is literally, "does not die." It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion, that the words which Jesus addressed to Peter were heard by the other five Apostles. Otherwise, the saying, or report referred to in this verse, could not have gone forth. v24.—[This is the disciple, etc.] In this verse the Apostle John makes a solemn declaration of his own authorship of the Gospel which bears his name, and of the truth of the matters which the Gospel itself contains. As usual, with characteristic humility, he does not give his name, but modestly speaks of himself in the third person. It is as though he said,— "Finally, I, John the Apostle, who leaned on Jesus's breast, declare that I am the person who here testifies of these sayings and doings of Christ, and who has here written them down in this book, and I know that I have told nothing but what is true, and that my testimony may be implicitly trusted." The first person plural is here used by John, we should observe, just as it is in the beginning of his first Epistle. The verse seem[s] written in order to assure all readers of John's Gospel that they need feel no doubt whatever that they have in this Gospel a faithful and true record of things that Jesus said and did, and that this, the last of the four narratives of Christ's history, is just as trustworthy, credible, and dependable as the books written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. v25.—[And there are also many other things, etc.] In this verse John seems to wind up his book, by breaking forth into a fervent declaration about the wonderful things which his Lord and Master had done. It is as though he said, "Though I finish my Gospel here, I have not told all the marvellous things that Jesus did while He was upon earth. There are many other things which He did, and many other words which He spoke, which are not recorded in my Gospel, nor yet in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Indeed, if they were written down every one, I suppose the world would not receive them, and could not comprehend their value." The words which we render, "The books that should be written," would be more literally translated, "The books written." Brentius calls attention to the very large number of miracles which, according to Matthew, were wrought by our Lord, of which we have no special record in any of the Gospels. (See Matthew 4:23-24; Matthew 11:5.) He justly argues that if these were all put down and described, it would greatly swell the Gospel narrative. What we have recorded is only a sample of what Jesus did. Henry observes, that books might easily have been multiplied about Christ. "Everything that Christ said or did was worth our notice, and capable of being improved. He never spoke an idle word, and never did an idle thing; nay, He never spoke or did anything mean, little, or trifling, which is more than can be said of the wisest of men."— But he wisely adds, "If we do not believe and improve what is written already, neither should we if there had been much more." The expression which John uses in this verse about "the world not receiving the books," is not without difficulty. It cannot of course mean that the material bulk of the books would be so large that the universe could not receive them. This would be absurd, as the "things" spoken of are only the things which Jesus did and said during the three years of His ministry. But what does the expression mean? (a) Some, as Heinsius and Whitby, think that it means "the world, or unconverted portion of mankind, could not receive, take in, or comprehend more, if more was written. There is enough recorded for the conviction of sinners, and for the guidance of all who honestly want to be saved."— It is a grave objection to this view, that the text does not say "the world" simply, but "the world itself." Yet in fairness it must be allowed that in this sense the expression is rather like that in Amos: "The land is not able to bear all His words." (Amos 7:10.) (b) Some think that the phrase must be taken as a strong hyperbolical description of the quantity and value of Christ's works and words, during the period of His ministry, and that we must not press an excessively literal interpretation of the phrase. They argue that the figure called "hyperbole" is not at all uncommon in the Scripture, and that language is often used, when the idea to be conveyed is that of very great size, value, quantity, or number, which evidently cannot be interpreted literally. On the whole, I incline to think that this is the right view of the expression, and that it harmonizes well with the fervent, warm-hearted, loving character of the Apostle who lay on Jesus' breast, and was commissioned to write the fourth Gospel. He ends with a heart full of Christ, and running over with love to Him, and zeal for His glory, and so he winds up just like himself. The objection, sometimes made, that hyperbolical language is not consistent with inspiration, does not appear to me at all valid. No intelligent and careful reader of the Bible can fail to see that the inspired writers often use hyperbolical phrases,— phrases, I mean, that cannot possibly bear a literal interpretation, and must be regarded as a condescending accommodation to the weakness of man. For example; "Cities walled up to heaven." (Deuteronomy 1:28.) "A land that flowed with milk and honey." (Joshua 5:6.) "Camels as the sand of the sea for multitude." (Judges 7:12.) All these are phrases which cannot be interpreted literally, and which any sensible person knows to be figurative and hyperbolical. Our Lord Himself speaks of "Capernaum being exalted unto heaven;" and says, "If any man come after Me, and hate not his father and mother he cannot be my disciple." (Matthew 11:23; Luke 14:26.) In both cases His language evidently cannot be construed literally. Calvin observes, "If the Evangelist, casting his eyes on the mightiness of the majesty of Christ, exclaims in astonishment, that even the whole world could not contain a full narrative of it, ought we to wonder? Nor is he at all to be blamed, if he employs a frequent and ordinary figure of speech for commending the excellence of Christ's works. For he knew how God accommodates Himself to the ordinary way of speaking, on account of our ignorance." This view is adopted by Augustine, Cyril, Bucer, Musculus, Gualter, Gerhard, Flacius, Ferus, Toletus, Maldonatus, Cornelius á Lapide, Jansenius, Pearson, Henry, Pearce, Scott, Tittman, Bloomfield, Barnes, Alford, Wordsworth, and Burgon. Lampe protests strongly against the idea of any hyperbole being used, as barely reverent. But I cannot see any force in his argument. The Greek word which we render "contain," is the same that is rendered in Matthew 19:11 "receive," and in the same sense that it appears used here: "All men cannot receive this saying." The change from the plural "we know," in John 21:24, to the singular "I suppose," in this verse, is undoubtedly peculiar. But there are parallel cases quoted by Doddridge. (Romans 7:14, and 1 Thessalonians 2:18.) Euthymius notes it, and thinks the insertion of "I suppose" was meant to soften down the hyperbole. It is noteworthy that the word "Amen" is the concluding word of each of the four Gospels. It is equivalent to saying, "In truth, verily, it is so." It is equally noteworthy that our Lord is the only person who ever uses the word at the beginning of a sentence. I have now completed my Notes on John's Gospel. I have given my last explanation. I have gathered my last collection of the opinions of Commentators. I have offered for the last time my judgment upon doubtful and disputed points. I lay down my pen with humbled, thankful, and solemnized feelings. The closing words of holy Bullinger's Commentary on the Gospels, condensed and abridged, will perhaps not be considered an inappropriate conclusion to my "Expository Thoughts on John."— "Reader, I have now set before thee thy Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, that very Son of God, who was begotten by the Father by an eternal and ineffable generation, consubstantial and coequal with the Father in all things;— but in these last times, according to prophetical oracles, was incarnate for us, suffered, died, rose again from the dead, and was made King and Lord of all things.— This is He who is appointed and given to us by God the Father, as the fulness of all grace and truth, as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world, as the ladder and door of heaven, as the serpent lifted up to render the poison of sin harmless, as the water which refreshes the thirsty, as the bread of life, as the light of the world, as the redeemer of God's children, as the shepherd and door of the sheep, as the resurrection and the life, as the corn of wheat which springs up into much fruit, as the conqueror of the prince of this world, as the way, the truth, and the life, as the true vine, and finally, as the redemption, salvation, satisfaction, and righteousness of all the faithful in all the world, throughout all ages. Let us therefore pray God the Father, that, being taught by His Gospel, we may know Him that is true, and believe in Him in whom alone is salvation; and that, believing, we may feel God living in us in this world, and in the world to come may enjoy His eternal and most blessed fellowship." Amen and Amen.