ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ Chap. 1:1-18. Prologue: in which is contained the substance and subject of the whole Gospel. The Eternal Word of God, the source of all existence, life, and light, became flesh, dwelt among us, was witnessed to by John, rejected by His own people, but received by some, who had power given them to become the sons of God. He was the perfection and end of God’ s revelation of Himself; which was partially made in the law, but fully declared in Jesus Christ. 1-5. The eternal præ -existence of the λόγος : His personal distinctness; but essential unity with God. His working in Creation, and in the enlightening of men before His manifestation in the flesh; His non-apprehension by them. Before commenting on the truths here declared, it is absolutely necessary to discuss the one word on which the whole turns: viz. ὁλόγος . This term is used by John without explanation, as bearing a meaning well known to his readers. The enquiry concerning that meaning must therefore be conducted on historical, not on mere grammatical grounds. And the most important elements of the enquiry are, (I.) the usage of speech as regards the word, by John himself and other biblical writers: and (II.) the purely historical information which we possess on the ideas attached to the word. I. From the first consideration we find, that in other biblical authors, as well as in John, the word is never used to signify the divine Reason or Mind; nor indeed those of any human creature. These ideas are expressed by πνεῦμα or καρδία , or νοῦς , or ἡσοφίατοῦθεοῦ . In the classics the word λόγος never signifies the subjective faculty of reason, but the reason to be given, objectively, of any thing or things. The usual Scripture meaning of λόγος is speech or word. ὁλόγοςτοῦθ . is the creative, declarative, injunctive Word of God. That this is also the import in our prologue, is manifest, from the evident relation which it bears to the opening of the history of creation in Genesis. ὁλόγος is not an attribute of God, but an acting reality, by which the Eternal and Infinite is the great first cause of the created and finite. Again this λόγος is undoubtedly in our prologue, personal:— not an abstraction merely, nor a personification,— not the speaking word of God, once manifested in the Prophets but afterwards fully declared in Christ, as Luthardt (i. 280 ff.), comparing our prologue with Hebrews 1:1,— but a Person: for ὁλόγοςἦνπρὸςτὸνθεόν , and ὁλόγοςσὰρξἐγένετο : also θεὸςἦνὁλόγος , not θεοῦἦν ,— which certainly would be said of none but a Person. Moreover, the λόγος is identical with Jesus Christ, as the præ -existing Son of God. A comparison of vv. 14 and 15 will place this beyond doubt. And Jesus Christ is the Word of God, not because He speaks the word ;— nor because He is the One promised or spoken of, = ὁλεγόμενος ,— which is even less according to analogy;— nor because He is the Author and source of the λόγος as spoken in the Scriptures, &c.,— any more than his being called ζωή and φῶς implies only that He is the Giver of life and light: but because the Word dwells in and speaks from him, just as the Light dwells in and shines from, and the Life lives in and works from, Him. This λόγος which became flesh, is not from, nor of, Time or Space (ch. 3:31;. 8:58); but eternally præ -existent,— and manifested in Time and Space, for the gracious ends of divine Love in Redemption (ch. 3:16, 17). This λόγος spoke in the Law and Prophets, yet partially and imperfectly (ver. 17; ch. 5:39, 46); but in the personal λόγος , spoke forth in fulness of grace and truth. It was He who made the worlds (ver. 3); He, who appeared to Isaiah (Isa_6, compare ch. 12:41); He, whose glory is manifested in His power over nature (ch. 2:11); He, by reception of whom the new birth is wrought (ch. 1:12, 13); who has power over all flesh (ch. 17:2),— and can bestow eternal life (ibid.); whose very sufferings were His glory, and the glorifying of God (ch. 17:1 .); and who, after those sufferings, resumed, and now has, the glory which He had with the Father before the world began (ch. 18:5, 24). Luthardt, in his Commentary on this Gospel, has propounded (vol. i. p. 280 ff.) the following view of the word λόγος and its usage: Jesus Christ is the fulness of that word of God which was fragmentarily manifested in the Prophets (Hebrews 1:1). But in this prologue, ὁλόγος is not to be taken as identical with Jesus not yet incarnate, nor is He the subject of vv. 1 ff. And he urges ch. 10:35, 36 (see note there, where I have discussed this) as a key text to the meaning of λόγος . It seems to me, that while much of his view is true and sound, that part of it will not hold which denies the identity of the præ -existent λόγος with Jesus, in the Apostle’ s mind. Had he intended by the λόγος of vv. 1-4 any other than the personal Son of God who in ver. 14 became flesh, I do not see how ἦνπρὸςτὸνθεόν , and θεὸςἦν , could be used of ὁλόγος . Nor again can I consent with him to disconnect the use of λόγος by St. John from its previous history. The reasons given in this note for believing such use, as matter of fact, to have been prepared by the Alexandrine philosophy, are no way affected by the objections which he alleges, the difference between the λόγος of St. John and that of Philo, and the corrupt character of the philosophy itself. II. We are now secondly to enquire, how it came that St. John found this word λόγος so ready made to his hands, as to require no explanation. The answer to this will be found by tracing the gradual personification of the Word, or Wisdom of God, in the O.T. and Jewish writings. We find faint traces of this personification in the book of Psalms: see Psalms 33:4, Psalms 33:6; Psalms 119:89, Psalms 119:105; Psalms 107:20; Psalms 147:15, Psalms 147:18. But it was not the mere offspring of poetic diction. For the whole form and expression of the O.T. revelation was that of the Word of God. The Mosaic history opens with ‘ God said, Let there be light.’ Spoken commands, either openly, or in visions, were the communications from God to man. It is the Word, in all the Prophets; the Word, in the Law; in short, the Word, in all God’ s dealings with his people: see further, Isaiah 40:8; Isaiah 55:10, Isaiah 55:11: Jeremiah 23:29 al. And as the Word of God was the constant idea for his revelations relatively to man, so was the Wisdom of God, for those which related to His own essence and attributes. That this was a later form of expression than the simple recognition of the divine Word in the Mosaic and early historical books, would naturally be the case, in the unfolding of spiritual knowledge and divine contemplation. His Almightiness was first felt, before His Wisdom and moral Purity were appreciated. In the books of Job (ch. 28:12 ff.) and the Proverbs (ch. 8, 9.) we find this Wisdom of God personified; in the latter in very plain and striking terms; and this not poetically only, but practically; ascribing to the Wisdom of God all his revelation of Himself in His works of Creation and Providence. So that this Wisdom embraced in fact in itself the Power of God; and there wanted but the highest divine attribute, Love, to complete the idea. But this was reserved for the N.T. manifestation. The next evidences of the gradual personification of the Wisdom of God are found in the two Apocryphal Books, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon. The first of these, originally written in Hebrew (see Winer, Realwö rterbuch, s. v.), belongs probably to the latter half of the second century before Christ. In ch. 1:1, Wisdom is said to be παρὰκυρίου , καὶμετ ʼ αὐτοῦεἰςτὸναἰῶνα : and in ver. 4, προτέραπάντωνἔκτισταισοφία . Then in ch. 24:9-21, the same strain is continued: πρὸτοῦαἰῶνοςἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆςἔκτισένμεκ .τ .λ ., and the passage concludes with these remarkable words, οἱἐσθίοντέςμεἔτιπεινάσουσιν , καὶοἱπίνοντέςμεἔτιδιψήσουσιν . In the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, dating probably about 100 a.c., we find (in ch. 6:22-ch. 9.) a similar personification and eulogy of Wisdom. In this remarkable passage we have Wisdom called πάρεδροςτῶνσῶνθρόνων (ch. 9:4)— said to have been παροῦσαὅτεἐποίειςτὸνκόσμον (ch. 9:9)— parallelized with ὁλόγοςσου (ch. 9:1, 2: see also ch. 16:12). In ch. 18:15, 16, the παντοδύναμοςλόγος is set forth as an Angel coming down from heaven, and destroying the Egyptians. It seems highly probable that the author’ s monotheistic views were confused by the admixture of Platonism, and that he regarded Wisdom as a kind of soul of the world. He occasionally puts her for God, occasionally for an attribute of God. But he had not attained that near approach to a personal view which we shall find in the next step of our enquiry. The large body of Jews resident in Alexandria were celebrated for their gnosis, or religious philosophy. The origin of this philosophy must be referred to the mixture of the Jewish religious element with the speculative philosophies of the Greeks, more especially with that of Plato, and with ideas acquired during the captivity from Oriental sources. One of these Alexandrine writers in the second century a.c. was Aristobulus, some fragments of whose works have been preserved to us. He tells us that by the θείαφωνή we are not to understand a ῥητὸνλόγον , but ἔργωνκατασκευάς — the whole working of God in the creation of the world. But the most complete representation of the Judæ o-alexandrine gnosis has come down to us in the works of Philo, who flourished cir. a.d. 40-50. It would be out of the province of a note to give a review of the system of Philo: the result only of such review (see Lü cke, vol. i. 272-283) will be enough. He identifies the λόγος with the σοφία of God; it is the εἰκὼνθεοῦ (Mangey, vol. i. p. 6 al. fr.); the ἀρχέτυποςκ . παράδειγμαφωτός , αὐτὸςδὲοὐδενὶτῶνγεγονότωνὅμοιος (i. 632): ὁπρεσβύτεροςτῶνγένεσινεἰληφότων (i. 437): πρεσβύτεροςυἱὸςτοῦτῶνὄντωνπατρός (i. 414): ὁπρωτόγονοςαὐτοῦ , ὁἄγγελοςπρεσβύτατος , ὡςἀρχάγγελοςπολυώνυμοςὑπάρχων (i. 427): σκιὰθεοῦ , ᾧκαθάπερὀργάνῳχρησάμενοςἐκοσμοποίει (i. 106): δι ʼ οὗὁκόσμοςκατεσκευάσθη (i. 162): τῷδὲἀρχαγγέλῳκ . πρεσβυτάτῳλόγῳδωρεὰνἐξαίρετονἔδωκενὁτὰὅλαγεννήσαςπατήρ , ἵναμεθόριοςστὰςτὸγενόμενονδιακρίνῃτοῦπεποιηκότος .— ἀγάλλεταιδὲἐπὶτῇδωρεᾷ , … οὔτεἀγέννητοςὡςὁθεὸςὤν , οὐδὲγεννητὸςὡςὑμεῖς , ἀλλὰμέσοςτῶνἄκρων , ἀμφοτέροιςὁμηρεύων (i. 501 f.): δύογάρ , ὡςἔοικεν , ἱερὰθεοῦ , ἓνμὲνὅδεὁκόσμος , ἐνᾧκαὶἀρχιερεὺςὁπρωτόγονοςαὐτοῦθεῖοςλόγος (i. 653): ὁτοῦθεοῦὕπαρχος (i. 308): περιέχειπάντακαὶπεπλήρωκεν (ii. 655): δεύτεροςθεός , ὅςἐστινἐκείνουλόγος (ii. 625, fragment, from Eusebius, Præ p. Evang. vii. 13, vol. iii. p. 545). These instances, the number of which might be much enlarged, will serve to shew how remarkably near to the diction and import of some passages in our Gospel Philo approached in speaking of the λόγος . At the same time there is a wide and unmistakeable difference between his λόγος and that of the Apostle. He does not distinguish it from the Spirit of God (Lü cke, i. p. 278), nor does he connect it with any Messianic ideas, though these latter were familiar to him. Besides, his views are strangely compounded of Platonism and Judaism. The λόγος seems to be one comprehending, or ruling, the δυνάμεις or ἰδέαι of God, which, although borrowed from Plato, he judaically calls ἄγγελοι , and the λόγος their ἀρχάγγελος . We see by this however how fixed and prepared the term, and many of its attributes, were in the religious philosophy of the Alexandrine Jews. (On the question whether the λόγος of Philo is to be taken as strictly personal, see Dorner’ s remarks on Lü cke, in his Lehre von der Person Christi, i. p. 22 note.) Meanwhile the Chaldee paraphrasts of the O.T. had habitually used such expressions as י ְ ק ָ ר ָ א , or ש ׁ ְ כ ִ י נ ָ ה , or מ ֵ י מ ְ ר ָ א , ‘ the glory,’ or ‘ the presence,’ or ‘ the word,’ of God,— in places where nothing but His own agency could be understood. The last of these— the Memra, or word of God,— is used in so strictly personal a sense, that there can be little doubt that the Paraphrasts understood by it a divine Person or Emanation. From these elements, the Alexandrine and Jewish views of the λόγος or σοφία of God, there appear to have arisen very early among Christians, both orthodox and heretic, formal expressions, in which these or equivalent terms were used. Of this the Apostle Paul furnishes the most eminent example. His teacher Gamaliel united in his instruction both these elements, and they are very perceptible in the writings of his pupil. But we do not find in them any direct use of the term λόγος , as personally applied to the Son of God. This shews him to have spoken mainly according to the Jewish school,— among whom, as Origen states, he could find none who held τὸτὸνλόγονεἶναιτὸνυἱὸντοῦθεοῦ (Cont. Cels. ii. 31, vol. i. p. 413). We find a much nearer approximation to the Alexandrine method of speech in the Epistle to the Hebrews, written evidently by some disciple intimately acquainted with the Alexandrine gnosis . But even there we have not the λόγος identified personally with the Lord Jesus Christ, nor indeed personally spoken of at all,— however near some passages may seem to approach to this usage (ch. 4:12, 13; 11:3). The Alexandrine gnosis was immediately connected with Ephesus, where the Gospel of John was probably written. Apollos (Acts 18:24) came thither from Alexandria; and Cerinthus is related by Theodoret (Fab. Hæ r. ii. 3, vol. iv. p. 389) to have studied and formed his philosophic system in Egypt, before coming to Ephesus. These notices will serve to account for the term λόγος being already found by St. John framed to his use; and the anti-Gnostic tendency of his writings will furnish an additional reason why he should rescue such important truths as the præ -existence and attributes of the divine λόγος from the perversions which false philosophy had begun to make of them. In all that has been said in this note, no insinuation has been conveyed that either the Apostle Paul, or the writer to the Hebrews, or John, adopted in any degree their teaching from the existing philosophies. Their teaching (which is totally distinct from any of those philosophies, as will be shewn in this commentary) is that of the Holy Spirit;— and the existing philosophies, with all their follies and inadequacies, must be regarded, in so far as they by their terms or ideas subserved the work which the Spirit had to do by the Apostles and teachers of Christianity, as so many providential preparations of the minds of men to receive the fuller effulgence of the Truth as it is in Jesus, which shines forth in these Scriptures. The substance of this note has been derived from Dr. Lü cke’ s Commentary, vol. i. p. 249-294: De Wette’ s Handbuch, on John 1:1. Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, i. p. 15 ff.: Olshausen, Comm. ii. p. 30 ff. 1. ἐνἀρχῇ = πρὸτοῦτὸνκόσμονεἶναι , ch. 17:5. The expression is indefinite, and must be interpreted relatively to the matter spoken of. Thus in Acts 11:15, it is ‘ the beginning of the Gospel:’ and by the same principle of interpretation, here it is the beginning of all things, on account of the πάνταδι ʼ αὐτ . ἐγ . ver. 3. These words, if they do not assert, at least imply, the eternal præ -existence of the Divine Word. For ἐνἀρχῇἦν is not said of an act done ἐνἀρχῇ (as in Genesis 1:1), but of a state existing ἐνἀρχῇ , and therefore without beginning itself. ἦν , not equivalent to ἔστιν (see ἐγώεἰμι , ch. 8:58 al.), as Euthymius and others have supposed; but Origen has given the true reason for the indefinite past being used,— ἦνμὲνκυριώτερονἐπὶτοῦθεοῦλόγουτὸἔστινεἰπεῖν · ἀλλ ʼ ἐπεὶπρὸςδιαφορὰντῆςἐνανθρωπήσεωςγενομένηςἔντινικαιρῷ , ἀντὶτοῦἔστιντῷἦνὁεὐαγγελιστὴςκέχρηται (in Catena, Lü cke, p. 296). The existence of an enduring and unlimited state of being, implied in ἦν , is contrasted with ἐγένετο in ver. 3, and especially in ver. 14. καὶὁλ . ἦνπρὸςτ . θ .] The usage of πρός here, as with , is sufficiently borne out by the reff. Basil remarks (Lü cke, i. 297) that John says πρὸςτὸνθ ., not ἐντῷθ ., ἵνατὸἰδιάζοντῆςὑποστάσεωςπαραστήσῃ , … ἵναμὴπρόφασινδῷτῇσυγχύσειτῆςὑποστάσεως . Both the inner substantial union, and the distinct personality of the λόγος are here asserted. The former is distinctly repeated in the next words. κ . θ . ἦνὁλ .] and the Word was God. As regards the form of the sentence, it is strictly parallel with πνεῦμαὁθεός , ch. 4:24. But the sense to be conveyed here is as weighty a consideration as the form of the sentence. Had John intended to say, ‘ God was the Word,’ — what meaning could his assertion possibly have conveyed? None other than a contradiction to his last assertion, by which he had distinguished God from the Word. And not only would this be the case, but the assertion would be inconsistent with the whole historical idea of the λόγος , making this term to signify merely an attribute of God, just as when it is said ὁθεὸςἀγάπηἐστίν . Not to mention the unprecedented inversion of subject and predicate which this would occasion; ὁλόγος having been the subject before, and again resumed as the subject afterwards. The rendering of the words being then as above, their meaning is the next question. The omission of the article before θεός is not mere usage; it could not have been here expressed, whatever place the words might hold in the sentence. ὁλόγοςἦνὁθεός would give a sense liable to the objections first stated, and destroy the idea of the λόγος altogether. θεός must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,— not ὁθεός , ‘ the Father,’ in Person. It does not = θεῖος , nor is it to be rendered a God— but, as in σὰρξἐγένετο , σάρξ expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in θεὸςἦν , θεός expresses that essence which was His ἐνἀρχῇ :— that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,— was with God (the Father),— and was Himself God. 2. In order to direct the mind to the difference (in unity) between this λόγος and ὁθεός , John recalls the reader’ s attention to the two first clauses of ver. 1, which he now combines, in order to pass on to the creative work, which distinctly belongs to the λόγος . Thus also this verse fixes the reference of αὐτοῦ in ver. 3, which might otherwise, after the mention of θεός , have seemed ambiguous. 3. πάντα = τὰΠάντα (1 Corinthians 8:6: Colossians 1:16), = ὁκόσμος , ver. 10. This parallelism of itself refutes the Socinian interpretation of πάντα , ‘ all Christian graces and virtues,’ ‘ the whole moral world.’ But the history of the term λόγος forbids such an explanation entirely. For Philo (i. 162) says εὑρήσειςαἴτιονμὲναὐτοῦτὸνθεόν , ὑφ ʼ οὗγέγονεν · ὕληνδέ , τὰτέσσαραστοιχεῖα , ἐξὧνσυνεκράθη · ὄργανονδέ , λόγονθεοῦ , δι ʼ οὗκατεσκευάσθη : see also Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2. Olshausen observes, that we never read in Scripture that ‘ Christ made the world;’ but ‘ the Father made the world διὰ the Son,’ or ‘ the world was made ὑπό the Father, and διὰ the Son:’ because the Son never works of Himself, but always as the revelation of the Father; His work is the Father’ s will, and the Father has no Will, except the Son, who is all His will . The Christian Fathers rightly therefore rejected the semi-Arian formula, ‘ The Son was begotten by an act of the Father’ s will;’ for He is that Will Himself. καὶχωρ . αὐτ .] This addition is not merely a Hebraistic parallelism, but a distinct denial of the eternity and uncreatedness of matter as held by the Gnostics. They set matter, as a separate existence, over against God, and made it the origin of evil:— but John excludes any such notion. Nothing was made without Him ; all matter, and implicitly evil itself, in the deep and inscrutable purposes of creation , δι ʼ αὐτοῦἐγένετο . The punctuation at the end of the verse is uncertain, if we regard solely manuscript authority, but rests on the sense of the passage, which is rendered weak, and inconsistent with analogy, by placing the period after οὐδὲἕν :— weak, because in that case we must render ‘ That which was made by Him was life (i.e. having life), and that life was the light of men;’ but how was that life, i.e. that living creation which was made by Him, the light of men?— inconsistent with grammatical analogy, for John never uses γενέσθαιἐν for ‘ to be made by.’ [But , who adopts this punctuation, renders the passage thus: ‘ that which was made, therein was life.’ ] Besides which, John’ s usage of beginning a sentence with ἐν and a demonstrative pron. should have its weight: cf. ch. 13:35; 15:8; 16:26: 1 John 2:3, 1 John 2:4, 1 John 2:5; 1Jn_3:(8), 10, 16, 19, 24; 4:2 al. fr. Compare also ἐντούτῳἡἀλήθειαοὐκἔστιν , 1 John 2:4,— ἁμαρτίαἐναὐτῷοὐκἔστιν , ib. 3:5. I have determined therefore for the ordinary punctuation. It is said to have been first adopted owing to an abuse of the passage by the Macedonian heretics, who maintained that if the exclusion was complete, the Holy Spirit can also not have been without His creating power, i.e. was created by Him. But this would be refuted without including ὃγέγονεν , for the Holy Spirit ἦν , not ἐγένετο . 4. ἐναὐτῷζωὴἦν ] Compare 1 John 5:11; 1 John 1:1, 1 John 1:2, and ch. 6:33. ζωή is not merely ‘ spiritual life,’ nor ‘ the recovery of blessedness,’ — as Tholuck, Kuinoel, &c. explain it:— the λόγος is the source of all life to the creature, not indeed ultimately, but mediately (see ch. 5:26: 1 John 5:11). κ . ἡζωὴἦντ . φῶςτ . ἀνθ ] This is not to be understood of the teaching of the Incarnate Logos, but of the enlightening and life-sustaining influence of the eternal Son of God, in Whom was life. In the material world, light, the offspring of the Word of God, is the condition of life, and without it life degenerates and expires:— so also in the spiritual world that life which is in Him, is to the creature the very condition of all development and furtherance of the life of the spirit. All knowledge, all purity, all love, all happiness, spring up and grow from this life, which is the light to them all. It is not φῶς , but τὸφῶς :— because this is the only true light: see ver. 9, also 1 John 1:5. 5. As light and life are closely connected ideas, so are death and darkness. The whole world, lying in death and in darkness, is the σκοτία here spoken of:— not merely the ἐσκοτωμένοι (Ephesians 4:18; see ib. 5:7, 8), but the whole mass, with the sole exception (see below, ver. 12) of ὅσοιἔλαβοναὐτόν (compare ch. 3:19: 1 John 5:19). This φαίνει is not merely the historical present, but describes the whole process of the light of life in the Eternal Word shining in this evil and dark world; both by the O.T. revelations, and (see ch. 10:16; 11:52) by all the scattered fragments of light glittering among the thick darkness of heathendom. καὶ … κατέλ .] and the darkness comprehended (understood, apprehended) it not. That this is the meaning, will be clear from the context. John states here as a general fact, what he afterwards states of the appearance of the Incarnate Word to the chosen people, ver. 11. The sentences are strictly parallel. τὸφ . ἐντῇσκ . φαίνειεἰςτὰἴδιαἦλθεν , and κ . ἡσκ . αὐτὸοὐκατέλ . ║ καὶοἱἴδιοιαὐτὸνοὐπαρέλαβον . In the first, he is speaking of the whole shining of this light over the world; in the second, of its historical manifestation to the Jews. In both cases, the Divine Word was rejected. παρέλαβον is used in the second case as expressing the personal assumption to oneself as a friend or companion: see reff. Lü cke observes (i. 313), that the almost tragic tone of this verse is prevalent through the Gospel of John and his First Epistle, see ch. 3:19; 12:37 ff. al.: and is occasionally found in Paul also, see Romans 1:18 ff. The other interpretation of κατέλαβεν , ‘ overtook,’ ‘ came upon’ is not admissible, the word never importing this), is unobjectionable as far as the usage of the word is concerned (see ch. 12:35: Mark 9:18); but yields no sense in the context. The connexion of the two members of our verse by καί is not, ‘ The Light shineth in the darkness, and therefore (i.e. because darkness is the opposition to light, and they exclude one another) the darkness comprehended it not;’ but, ‘ The Light shineth in the darkness, and yet (notwithstanding that the effect of light in darkness is so great and immediate in the physical world) the darkness comprehended it not:’ see καί below, ver. 11. 6-18. The manifestation and working of the Divine Word, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, incarnate in our flesh. 6. The Evangelist now passes to the historic manifestation of the Word. μετεληλυθὼςἐπὶτὴνἐπιφάνειαντοῦυἱοῦ , τίναἂνεὗρενἀρχὴνἑτέραν , ἢτὰκατὰτὸνἸωάννην ; ( in loc. p. 729, ed. Migne.) He enunciates briefly in these verses 6, 7, what he afterwards, vv. 19-36, narrates with historical detail. ἐγένετο — not belonging to ἀπεσταλμένος , but to ἄνθρ .: the ordinary opening of an historical period, see Luke 1:5. No stress on ἐγένετο , as distinguished from ἦν , ver. 1 (Olshausen), see ch. 3:1. There was— a man sent, &c. In ἀπεστ . παρὰθεοῦ we have possibly a reference to Malachi 3:1. 7. The purpose of John’ s coming was to bear witness to a fact, which fact (ver. 33) was made known to him by divine revelation. εἰςμαρτυρίαν , not as E. V., ‘ for a witness,’ but for witness, for the purpose of bearing witness: so A.V.R. ἵναμαρτ . κ .τ .λ . is an expansion of εἰςμαρτ .:— the subject of his testimony was to be the Light,— and the aim of it, that all might believe (εἰςτὸφῶς , see ch. 12:36) through him (i.e. John: not τοῦφωτός (Grot.), which confuses the whole, for then we must understand εἰςθεόν after πιστ . which is here out of place). 8. John was himself ὁλύχνοςὁκαιόμενοςκαὶφαίνων (ch. 5:35), see note on Matthew 5:14, but not τὸφῶς . On ἵνα , see reff.: it belongs to ἦν , not to ἦλθεν above. And thus there is no ellipsis of ‘ came’ or ‘ was sent:’ John simply was, in order to &c. 9. The word ἀληθινόν (see reff.) in this connexion imports original, ‘ archetypal,’ and is used of the true genuine sources and patterns of those things which we find here below only in fragmentary imitations and derivations. Such an original was the Light here spoken of;— but John was only a derived light,— not lumen illuminans, but lumen illuminatum. The construction of this verse has been much disputed. Is ἐρχόμενονεἰςτ . κ . to be taken with ἄνθρωπον (as syrr Orig Exo_2Exo_2 Epiph Chr Cyr Thl Euthym and most of the ancient Commentators and E. V.), or does it belong to τὸφῶςτὸἀλ .? The former construction can only be defended by a Rabbinical usage, by which כ ּ ָ ל ב ּ ָ א ֵ י ע ו ֹ ל ָ ם means ‘ all men’ (Schö ttgen, i. 223). But it is very questionable whether John ever speaks thus. Certainly he does not, in any of the passages commonly cited to defend this rendering, ch. 18:37 (which is spoken by Christ of Himself and His Mission); 16:21, 28; 12:46. And even if he had thus spoken, how harsh and how unmeaning is the sentence; whether with Euthym. we lay an emphasis on ἦν , or with E. V. &c. supply τοῦτο before it. If this latter had been intended, surely it would have been more distinctly expressed; and even when it is supplied, we have in this verse only a less forcible repetition of ver. 4. It seems then that we must join ἐρχ . εἰςτ . κ . with τ . φῶςτ . ἀληθ . But even then, three ways of rendering are apparently open to us. The first of these, which is that of Socinus, takes ἐρχόμ . κ .τ .λ . as meaning, ‘ at its coming into the world.’ This however— besides the sense being inconsistent with ver. 4— leaves the opening clause without a demonstrative pronoun, as before. Then, secondly, ἐρχόμενον might seem to be used in the sense in which we frequently have ἐρχόμενος , as a quasi-future, ‘ who was, or is, to come:’ see Matthew 11:3: Mark 10:30 al. fr.: ch. 6:14; 11:27, in which last two places it is joined, as here, with εἰςτὸνκόσμον . But if this be adopted (which even constructionally is very doubtful), the only sense will be that the true light, &c. was to come; i.e. had not yet come; which manifestly is not correct;— for it had come, when John gave his witness; and the whole of these verses 6-13 relate to the time when He had appeared, and come to His own. We are driven then to the only legitimate rendering, which is to take ἦνἐρχόμενον as equivalent to an imperfect came:— this usage being frequent in the N.T., see reff.:— i.e. at the time when John bore this witness, the true light which lighteth every man, came— was in process of manifesting Himself,— into the world. Tholuck objects to this construction that ἦν is too far from ἐρχόμενον :— but Lü cke answers, that ἦσαν and νηστεύοντες are nearly as far separated in Mark 2:18. ὃφωτ . πάνταἄνθ . is a further expansion of τὸἀληθινόν . 10. The κόσμος is the created world, into which He came (ver. 9), which was made by Him (ver. 3), which nevertheless knew, recognized Him not. καί is as in ver. 5. αὐτόν , not αὐτό , because though τὸφῶς has been the subject, yet the δι ʼ αὐτοῦἐγένετο brings in again the creative λόγος , Who is the Light. The three members of the sentence form a climax;— He was in the world (and therefore the world should have known Him), and the world was made by Him (much more then should it have known Him), and the world knew Him not. 11. τὰἴδια here cannot well mean the world, or οἱἴδιοι mankind in general: it would be difficult to point out any Scripture usage to justify such a meaning. But abundance of passages bear out the meaning which makes τὰἴδια His own inheritance or possession, i.e. Judæ a; and οἱἴδιοι , the Jews: compare especially the parable Matthew 21:33 ff., and Sir. 24:7 ff. And thus ἦλθεν forms a nearer step in the approach to the declaration in ver. 14. He came to His own. On παρέλ . see reff.,— and above on ver. 5. 12. The ὅσοι … primarily refers to the ἐκλογή among the Jews who have just been spoken of: but also, by implication, being opposed to both ὁκόσμος and οἱἴδιοι , the ἐκλογή in all the world. ἔλαβον = παρέλαβον above— as many as recognized Him as that which He was— the Word of God and Light of men. ἔδωκεναὐτ . ἐξουσ .] ἐξουσ . is not merely capability = δύναμιν (Lü cke),— still less privilege or prerogative (Chrysost. and others),— but power (De Wette); involving all the actions and states needful to their so becoming, and removing all the obstacles in their way (e.g. the wrath of God, and the guilt of sin). τέκναθ . γενέσθαι ] The spiritual life owes its beginning to a birth from above, ch. 3:3-7. And this birth is owing to the Holy Spirit of God; so that this is equivalent to saying, ‘ As many as received Him, to them gave He His Holy Spirit.’ And we find that it was so: see Acts 10:44. τέκναθ . is a more comprehensive expression than υἱοὶτ . θ ., which brings out rather our adoption, and hope of inheritance (Romans 8:14 ff.), whereas the other involves the whole generation and process of our life in the Spirit, as being from and of God, and consequently our likeness to God, walking in light as He is in light (1 John 1:5-7)— free from sin (ib. 3:9; 5:18) and death (ch. 8:51). τοῖςπιστ . εἰςτ . ὄν . αὐτ .] τὸὄνομααὐτ . is His manifestation as that which He has given Himself out to be, i.e. as a Saviour from sin: see Matthew 1:21, καλέσειςτὸὄνομααὐτοῦἸησοῦν · αὐτὸςγὰρσώσειτὸνλαὸναὐτοῦἀπὸτῶνἁμαρτιῶναὐτῶν . 13. The Jews grounded their claim to be children of God on their descent from Abraham. John here negatives any such claim, and asserts the exclusive divine birth of all who become children of God by faith. It is to be noticed that the conjunctions here are not the merely disjunctive ones οὔτε … οὔτε , which would necessitate the ranging the clauses as co-ordinate and parallel, but οὐδὲ … οὐδέ , which rise in climax from one clause to another,— ‘ not ἐξαἱμάτων , nor yet ἐκθελ . σαρκ . nor yet ἐκθελ . ἀνδ ., but ἐκθεοῦ ’ (see examples of οὔτε , Matthew 12:32: of οὐδέ , Matthew 6:26). Many interpreters have seen in θέλημαἀνδρός the male, and in θέλημασαρκός the female side of human concupiscence (so Augustine, Theophylact, &c.); or in the former the higher and more conscious, in the latter the lower and animal side (Bleek, Luthardt). Besides the above, other objections lie against both these interpretations,— (1) that σάρξ is never so used (Ephesians 5:29 is no instance in point); (2) that θέλημα is ascribed to both. Euthymius seems to give the right interpretation: εἰπὼνδὲὅτιοὐκἐξαἱμάτων , ἐπήγαγεφανερώτερονὅτιοὐδὲἐκθελήματοςσαρκός · εἶτακαὶτοῦτοτελεώτερονἐφηρμήνευσε , προσθεὶςὅτιοὐκἐκθελήματοςἀνδρός · αἷμαγὰρκαὶσάρξ , ὁἀνήρ · θέλημαδὲνῦννοεῖτὴνἐπιθυμίαν , τὴνσυνουσίαν : in loc. ii. 421. Or perhaps this may be earned somewhat further, and we may better satisfy the climax by regarding the ἐξαἱμάτων as indicating the mere phenomena of physical generation wherever found: then rising to ἐκθελήματοςσαρκός , the instigation of that capacity by sexual desire: then rising still higher to the most exalted instance of that desire, ἐκθελήματοςἀνδρός . The plural usage of αἱμάτων is only found in one other place in this signification,— Eurip. Ion 693 Dind., 705 Herm., ἔχειδόλοντύχανθ ʼ ὁπαῖς | ἄλλωντραφεὶςἀφ ʼ αἱμάτων . The other usage of the plural, for murder, is frequent in the LXX and the classics. ἀνήρ , in the sense of man generally, is not uncommon; we have in plur. πατὴρἀνδρῶντεθεῶντε , in Hom. passim; and in sing. Il. ν . 321; σ . 432, 433. ἐκ , remarks De Wette, denotes, the first time, the material— the second and third time, the mediate cause,— the fourth time, the immediate cause, of the generation. 14. καί must not be understood (Chrysost., Grot., Lampe, Theophylact, al.) as giving a reason for the verse before; it is only the same copula as in vv. 1, 3, 4, 5; passing on to a further assertion regarding the Word. σὰρξἐγ ., became flesh: the most general expression of the great truth that He became man. He became that, of which man is in the body compounded. There is no reference here to the doctrine of the Lord Jesus being the second Adam, as Olshausen thinks; but although there may be no reference to it, it lies at the ground of this wideness of expression. The doctrine in this form may have been, as Lü cke observes, alien to John’ s habits of thought, but not that which is implied in the doctrine, the taking of the nature of man by the Eternal Word. The simplicity of this expression is no doubt directed against the Docetæ of the Apostle’ s time, who maintained that the Word only apparently took human nature. Therefore he says σὰρξἐγένετο , absolutely and literally became flesh: see ref. 1 John. The expression is not guarded against the interpretation of the Apollinarian heretics, who held that the Lord had not a human soul ; but this error was not in the Apostle’ s view, and is abundantly refuted elsewhere (see Matthew 26:38 and note on 36-46, and the references there made to John’ s Gospel). ἐσκήνωσεν , ‘ sojourned,’ or ‘ tabernacled,’ in us. There is no reference to the flesh being the tabernacle of the Spirit;— but the word is one technically used in Scripture to import the dwelling of God among men. See besides reff., Leviticus 26:11, Leviticus 26:12: Ezekiel 43:7; Ezekiel 37:27: Sir. 24:8, 10. ἡμῖν — “ hominibus, qui caro sumus,” Bengel. καὶἐθ . τ . δόξ . αὐτ .] we saw— see 1 John 1:1: 2 Peter 1:16. This is the Apostle’ s testimony as such, see Acts 1:21. The mention of δόξα seems to be suggested by the word ἐσκήνωσεν , so frequently used of the divine Presence or Shechinah, and cognate in its very form with it: “ eæ dem litteræ in ש כ י נ ה et σκηνή .” Bengel. This glory was seen by the disciples, ch. 2:11; 11:4: also by Peter, James, and John, specially, on the mount of transfiguration: to which occasion the words ὡςμονογενοῦςπαρὰπατρός seem to refer: but mainly, in the whole converse and teaching and suffering of the Lord, who was full of grace and truth: see below. On ὡς Chrysostom remarks (Hom. xii. in Joan., vol. viii. p. 66), οὐχὁμοιώσεως , οὐδὲπαραβολῆς , ἀλλὰβεβαιώσεωςκαὶἀναμφισβητήτουδωρισμοῦ · ὡσανεὶἔλεγενἘθ . δόξανοἵανἔπρεπεκαὶεἰκὸςἔχεινμονογενῆκαὶγνήσιονυἱὸνὄντατοῦπάντωνβασιλέωςθεοῦ (see reff.). μονογ .] This word applied to Christ is peculiar to John: see reff. In the N.T. usage it signifies the only son;— in the LXX, Ps. 21:20, the beloved, and Ps. 24:16, one deserted, left alone. It has been attempted to render the word in John, according to the usage in Ps. 21:20. But obviously in the midst of ideas reaching so far deeper than that of regard, or love, of the Father for the Son, the word cannot be interpreted except in accordance with them. It refers to, and contrasts with, the τέκνατοῦθεοῦ in vv. 12, 13. They receive their divine birth by faith in Him and through Him; but He is the μονογενής of the Father in the higher sense, in which He is γεννηθείς the Son of God. παρὰπατρός belongs to μονογενοῦς ; not to δόξαν , as Theophyl., Erasm., Grot. suppose. The ellipse is to be supplied by considering the state in which the λόγος here appears,— that of having become σάρξ and dwelling among us. πλήρ . χάρ . κ . ἀλ .] These words have been variously connected. The view of Erasmus, who places the period at πατρός , and connects these words with Ἰωάννης , scarcely needs refutation, whether we regard the construction, or the meaning of the sentence. The reading πλήρη has probably arisen from a correction, to connect the adj. with δόξαν . Some do this even with πλήρης , but both the construction and the sense are against it. It was not the δόξα , but He Himself, that was πλήρηςχ . κ . ἀλ .: see below, ver. 17. Others suppose πλήρης to refer directly to μονογενοῦς , and justify this by Ephesians 3:17, Ephesians 3:18. But besides the unnecessary harshness of this, the sense is against it also; for it cannot be said, ‘ we saw His glory, the glory as of one who was full of grace and truth;’ we must have the ὡς referring, in the sense of οἵανἔπρεπε (see above), to some mysterious hidden character which the glory testified, whereas the πλήρηςχ . κ . ἀλ . is itself a mere matter of fact, to which the Apostles themselves could (ver. 17) bear witness. Another construction is (as usually done and in E. V.) to take καὶ … πατρός as parenthetical, and connect πλήρης immediately with ἐσκήνωσεν . Such parentheses are common in the style of this Gospel: see ch. 6:22-24; 11:2; 19:23, 24; ib. ver. 31. But by far the best is, to regard πλήρης as referring to αὐτοῦ , by an anomaly in concord often found in the N.T. (see Luke 20:27 note; 24:47), and especially in the Apocalypse,— cf. Revelation 1:4 al. fr. χάρ . κ . ἀλ .] Not = χάριτοςἀληθινῆς , which destroys the precision of the expression, and itself conveys no sense whatever; but setting out the two sides of the divine manifestation in Christ,— χάρις , as the result of Love to mankind,— ἀλήθεια (see reff. and ch. 14:6), as the unity, purity, and light of His own Character. 15. The testimony of John, so important as being the fulfilment of the very object for which he was ἀπεσταλμένοςπαρὰθεοῦ , is in this prologue ranged, so to speak, parallel with the assertions and testimony of the Evangelist himself. So that this verse does not interrupt the train of thought, but confirms by this important testimony the assertion ὁλόγοςσὰρξἐγ ., shewing that John bore witness to His præ -existence. Then (ver. 16) the πλήρ . χ . κ . ἀλ . is again taken up. Euthymius paraphrases: εἰκαὶμὴἐγώ , φησί , δοκῶτισινἴσωςἀξιόπιστος , ἀλλὰπρὸἐμοῦὁἸωάννηςμαρτυρεῖπερὶτῆςθεότητοςαὐτοῦ , Ἰωάννηςἐκεῖνος , οὗτὸὄνομαμέγακαὶπεριβόητονπαρὰπᾶσιτοῖςἸουδαίοις . μαρτυρεῖ , present, for solemnity— as part of the testimony to Him, not only once given, but still subsisting. κέκραγεν ] crieth (the perfect being, in sense, present; ‘ hath cried,’ so that the voice is still sounding), see ch. 7:37: “ clamat Johannes cum fiducia et gaudio, uti magnum præ conem decet.” Bengel. οὗτοςἦνὃνεἶπον … ] This form of the words seems to shew, as indeed would appear from the announcement of his own office by the Baptist, that he had uttered these words in the power of the Spirit concerning Him whose forerunner he was before he saw and recognized Him in the flesh. Then, on doing so, he exclaimed, This was He of whom I said, &c. This view seems to be borne out by his own statement, ver. 33, and by the order of the narrative in Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13. ὀπίσωμ . ἐρχ .] In point of time; not of birth merely or principally, nor of commencement of official life: but, inasmuch as John was His Forerunner, on account of official position. ἔμπροσθένμ . γέγονεν ] The E. V. is here very accurate,— is preferred before me; the γέγονεν setting forth the advancement to official dignity before which John’ s office waned and decreased (ch. 3:30), which took place even while John’ s course was being fulfilled. The only objection to ‘ preferred’ is, its possible ambiguity. Even Dr. Johnson has fallen into the mistake, in his Dictionary, of quoting this passage as an instance of the sense “ to love more than another.” [‘ Taketh place,’ ] ‘ is advanced,’ ‘ hath come to be’ (which however again is ambiguous), are other possible renderings. This sense of ἔμπροσθεν (besides reff.) is justified by classical usage in Plato, who uses ἔμπροσθεντιθέναι for præ ponere, Legg. vii. 805. See also i. 631; v. 743. Also Demosthenes, κατὰΔιονυσοδώρου , p. 1296. 26, … τὰςαἰτίαςτῶνἡδικηκότωνἔμπροσθενοὔσαςτοῦδικαίου . ὅτιπρῶτόςμουἦν ] The only sense which these words will bear, is, because (or, for, but better because) He was (not ἐγένετο , but ἦν as in ver. 1) before Me; i.e. ‘ He existed, was in being, before me.’ The question raised by Lü cke and De Wette, whether it is probable that the Baptist had, or expressed such views of the præ -existence of Christ, is not one for us to deal with, in the face of so direct a testimony as is given to the fact, here and in ch. 3:27 ff. In all probability, the Evangelist was himself a disciple of the Baptist: and if he has given us a fuller and somewhat differing account of his testimony to Christ, it is because his means of information were ampler than those of the other Evangelists. The questioners seem to forget that the Baptist was divinely raised up and commissioned, and full of the Holy Ghost, and spoke in that power; his declarations were not therefore merely conclusions which he had arrived at by natural means,— the study of the prophecies, &c. (Lü cke, p. 353): but inspirations and revelations of the Spirit. This last is fully recognized by Olshausen (ii. 61). 16. Origen (in Evang. Johan. tom. vi. 2, vol. iv. p. 102) blames Heracleon for terminating the testimony of John at the end of ver. 17, and makes it continue to the end of ver. 18. But it can hardly be that his testimony extends beyond ver. 15, for ἡμεῖςπάντες would bear no very definite meaning, and the assertions in ver. 17 would be alien from the character of the Baptist, belonging as they do to the more mature development of Christian doctrines. I cannot doubt that this and the following verses belong to the Evangelist, and are a carrying onwards of his declarations concerning the divine Word. Ver. 15 is not parenthetical, but confirmatory of ver. 14, and this verse grounds itself on the fact of ver. 14, corroborated by the testimony of ver. 15,— that He dwelt among us, and that we saw His glory, full of grace and truth. τὸπλήρωμα is that of which He was πλήρης , ver. 14, and is not connected with the Gnostic pleroma at all. See reff. ἡμεῖςπάντες ] All who believe on Him: see ver. 12. ἐλάβομεν , καί ] received, and that … ‘ our relation to Him has been that of recipients out of His fulness, and the thing received has been’ .… So Herod. i. 102, ἔχωνδύοταῦταἔθνεα , καὶἀμφότεραἰσχυρά . χάρινἀντὶχάριτος ] The ancient interpretation, τὴνκαινὴνδιαθήκηνἀντὶτῆςπαλαιᾶς (Euthym.), is certainly wrong, for the ἐλάβομεν is spoken entirely of the times of the Incarnate Word: and besides, ὁνόμος and χάρις are distinctly opposed to one another in the next verse. The prep. ἀντί is properly used of any thing which supersedes another, or occupies its place. This is in fact its ordinary usage when exchange is spoken of: the possession of the thing gotten succeeds to, supersedes, the possession of the thing given in exchange, and I possess τοῦτοἀντὶἐκείνου . Thus also we have received χάρινἀντὶχάριτος continual accessions of grace; new grace coining upon and superseding the former. Thus in Theognis, Sentt. 343 ff. (Lü cke), τεθναίηνδ ʼ εἰμήτικακῶνἄμπαυμαμεριμνέων | εὑροίμην , δοίηςδ ʼ ἀντ ʼ ἀνιῶνἀνίας . And Chrysostom, de Sacerdotio, 6. 13, vol. i. p. 435, σὺδέμεἐκπέμπεις , ἑτέρανἀνθ ʼ ἑτέραςφροντίδαἐνθείς . Also Philo, i. 254, speaking of this very word χάρις :— τὰςπρώταςἀεὶχάριτας … ἐπισχὼνκαὶταμιευσάμενοςεἰσαῦθιςἑτέραςἀντὶἐκείνωνκαὶτρίταςἀντὶδευτέρων , καὶἀεὶνέαςἀντὶπαλαιοτέρων , τότεμὲνδιαφορούσας , τότεδ ʼ αὖκαὶτὰςαὐτὰςἐπιδίδωσι . 17. The connexion of this verse with the foregoing lies in the words τοῦπληρώμ . αὐτοῦ (ver. 16), and in χάριςκ . ἀλ . (ver. 14). ‘ We received from His fulness continual additions of grace, because that fulness is not, like the law, a positive enactment, finite and circumscribed, of which it could be said that it ἐδόθη , but the bringing in of grace and truth, which ἐγένετο by Jesus Christ.’ ἐδόθη and ἐγένετο have been variously distinguished,— αὐθεντικὸνμὲντὸἐγένετο , δουλικὸνδὲτὸἐδόθη , Theophyl. Similarly Bengel, “ Mosis non sua est lex; Christi sua est gratia et veritas.” Pæ d. i. 7, p. 134 , says: διὸκαίφησινἡγραφὴ “ ὁνόμοςδιὰΜωυσέωςἐδόθη ,” οὐχὶὑπὸΜωυσέως , ἀλλὰὑπὸμὲντοῦλόγου , διὰΜωυσέωςδὲτοῦθεράποντοςαὐτοῦ · διὸκαὶπρόσκαιροςἐγίνετο , ἡδὲἀΐδιοςχάριςκαὶἡἀλήθειαδιὰἸησοῦχριστοῦἐγένετο , κ .τ .λ . Origen (in Joan. tom. vi. c. 3, vol. iv. p. 107) speaks very similarly. But the distinction laid down above, which is hinted at by De Wette, seems to me to be the most obvious, and best suited to the context, where the πλήρωμα of Christ is set against the narrowness of positive enactment in the law. Certainly, the distinction must not be lost sight of, nor denied, as Lü cke attempts to do: for Bengel truly observes: “ Nullus philosophus tam accurate verba ponit, differentiamque eorum observat, quam Johannes, in hoc præ sertim capite.” χάριςκ . ἀλ .] I must again caution the student against any such wholly inadequate explanations as that these words are put ‘ per hendiadyn’ for χάριςἀληθινή . It is in this way that the depths of Scripture have been covered over by the rubbish of expositors. Such was not the method of investigation pursued by the great men of former centuries: witness Origen in loc.: εἰγὰρἸησοῦςἐστινὁφάσκων “ ἐγώεἰμιἡἀλήθεια ,” πῶςἡἀλήθειαδιὰἸησοῦχριστοῦγίνεται ; αὐτὸςγάρτιςδι ʼ ἑαυτοῦοὐγίνεται . ἀλλὰνοητέονὅτιἡαὐτοαλήθειαἡοὐσιώδηςκαὶἵν ʼ οὕτωςεἴπωπρωτότυποςτῆςἐνταῖςλογικαῖςψυχαῖςἀληθείας … οὐχὶδιὰἸησοῦχριστοῦἐγένετο , οὐδ ʼ ὅλωςδιάτινος , ἀλλ ʼ ὑπὸθεοῦἐγένετο · ὡςκαὶὁλόγοςοὐδιάτινος , ὁἐνἀρχῇπρὸςτὸνθεόν , καὶἡσοφία , ἣνἔκτισενἀρχὴνὁδῶναὐτοῦὁθεός , οὐδιάτινος , οὕτωςοὐδὲἡἀλήθειαδιάτινος . ἡδὲπαρ ʼ ἀνθρώποιςἀλήθειαδιὰἸησοῦχριστοῦἐγένετο · οἷονἡἐνΠαύλῳἀλ . καὶτοῖςἀποστόλοιςδιὰἸησοῦχριστοῦἐγένετο (vol. iv. p. 107). 18. The connexion is: ‘ Moses could not give out of the πλήρωμα of grace and truth, for he had no immediate sight of God, and no man can have: there is but One who can ἐξηγεῖσθαιθεόν , the μονογενὴςυἱός , who is no mere man, but abides in the bosom of the Father.’ θεὸνοὐδ . ἑώρ . π .] The sight of God here meant, is not only bodily sight (though of that it is true, see Exodus 33:20: 1 Timothy 6:16), but intuitive and infallible knowledge, which enables Him who has it to declare the nature and will of God: see ch. 3:11; 6:46; 14:7. The Evangelist speaks in this verse in accordance with the sayings of the gnosis whose phraseology he has adopted: τίςἑώρακεναὐτὸνκαὶἐκδιηγήσεται ; Sir. 43:31. ὁμον . υἱός ] As regards the reading μονογενὴςθεός , the authorities for and against it will be found in the digest. It seems to have arisen from a confusion of the contracted forms of writing, Υ and Θ C. The question, which reading to adopt, is one which, in the balance of authorities, must be provisionally decided by the consideration that as far as we can see, we should be introducing great harshness into the sentence, and a new and strange term into Scripture, by adopting θεός : a consequence which ought to have no weight whatever where authority is overpowering, but may fairly be weighed where this is not so. The “ præ stat procliviori ardua” finds in this case a legitimate limit. ὁὢνεἰςτ . κόλπον ] The expression must not be understood as referring to the custom of reclining ἐντῷκόλπῳ , as in ch. 13:23: for by this explanation confusion is introduced into the imagery, and the real depth of the truth hidden. The expression signifies, as Chrysostom observes, συγγένειακαὶἑνότηςτῆςοὐσίας :— and is derived from the fond and intimate union of children and parents. The present participle, as in ch. 3:13, is used to signify essential truth, without any particular regard to time. On the use of εἰς , see reff. It is not ‘ put for’ ἐν : indeed it would be well for the student to bear in mind as a general rule, that no word or expression is ever ‘ put for’ another: words are the index of thoughts,— and where an unusual construction is found, it points to some reason in the mind of the writer for using it, which reason is lost in the ordinary shallow method of accounting for it by saying that it is ‘ put for’ some other word. So here, εἰςτὸνκόλπον is not = ἐντῷκόλπῳ , but is a carrying on of the thought expressed in ver. 1, by πρὸςτὸνθεόν : it is a pregnant construction, involving in it the begetting of the Son and His being the λόγος of the Father,— His proceeding forth from God. It is a similar expression, on the side of His Unity with the Father, to εἰμὶπαρὰτοῦθεοῦ , on the side of His manifestation to men. We have similar expressions, uniting the verb of rest with the preposition of motion, in ἐςθρόνουςἕζοντο , Od. δ . 51; εἰςἀνάγκηνκείμεθ ʼ , Eur. Iph. . 624: see Kü hner, Gr. Gr. § 622. ἐκεῖνος ] ‘ He, and none else:’ an emphatic exclusive expression. ἐξηγήσατο ] declared, better than ‘ hath declared,’ as E. V. ἐξηγέομαι , ἐξήγησις , and ἐξηγητής (Genesis 41:8, Genesis 41:24), are technical terms used of the declaration of divine matters. Wetstein has collected abundance of passages in illustration of this usage. See also Mü ller’ s Eumenides, Excursus D, on the ἐξηγηταί . But Lü cke (and I think rightly) believes it more in accordance with the simple style of John to take the word here in its ordinary, not its technical meaning. The object to be supplied after the verb is most likely αὐτόν , i.e. τὸνθεόν . De Wette thinks this too definite, and supplies ‘ that which He has seen,’ as in ch. 3:11. Lü cke supplies τὴνχάριτακ . ἀλ ., as being ‘ that which He has seen;’ but De Wette well observes that χάρις is more matter of revelation by act, than of ἐξήγησις . Euthymius’ s explanation, ἐδίδαξενὅτιθεὸνοὐδεὶςἑώρακεπώποτε , is certainly wrong. See Matthew 11:27. 19-2:11. Introduction of Christ to the world: by the witness of John (vv. 19-40): by Himself (ver. 41-2:11). 19-28. The first witness borne by John to Jesus: before the deputation from the Sanhedrim. 19. αὕτη is the predicate, ἡμαρτυρία the subject, in the present form of the sentence. So very frequently in St. John, where commonly the mistake is made of supposing the demonstrative pronoun to be the subject, whereas it is ever the predicate of identification. Euthym., αὕτη … περὶἧςεἰπεῖνμέλλειπροϊών , … ἡγενομένηδηλονότιὅτεἀπεστ . κ .τ .λ . οἱἸουδαῖοι ] John alone of the Evangelists uses this expression;— principally as designating the chiefs of the Jewish people, the members of the Sanhedrim. It is an interesting enquiry, what this usage denotes as to the author or date of our Gospel. Prof. Bleek, Beiträ ge, pp. 245-249, has satisfactorily shewn that no inference can be deduced from it against the Jewish origin of the author, as Bretschneider and Fischer endeavoured to do: but it is rather confirmatory of the belief that the Gospel was written after the Jews had ceased to be politically a nation,— and among Gentiles;— the author himself contemplating these last as his readers. ἐξἹερ . does not belong to οἱἸουδ .,— nor to ἱερ . κ . Λευ .,— but to ἀπέστειλαν :— sent from Jerusalem priests, &c.: so ἐξαποστέλλω , Acts 7:12; Acts 11:22 al. ἱερ . κ . Λ .] This was a formal deputation;— priests and Levites, constituting the two classes of persons employed about the service of the temple (see Joshua 3:3), are sent (Matthew 21:23) officially to enquire into the pretensions of the new Teacher (ver. 25), who had collected about him such multitudes (Matthew 3:5), and had awakened popular expectation that he was the Messiah (Luke 3:5). σὺτίςεἶ ;— with reference to the popular doubts respecting him; asked in an unbelieving and inquisitorial spirit,— compare Matthew 3:7 ff., which had already taken place. Even among the learned, as well as among the people, there were considerable differences as to the prophecies respecting the Messiah: see ch. 7:40-52. 20. ὡμολόγησεν , he openly and formally confessed. This emphatic notice of his declaration seems to be introduced not with any view of removing too high an estimate of John’ s work and office, as sometimes supposed, but rather to shew the importance of his testimony, which was so publicly and officially delivered,— that the Messiah was come (see ch. 5:33-35); and the way in which he depreciated himself in comparison with Him who came after him. 21. σὺοὖντί ; equivalent to τίλέγειςπερὶσεαυτοῦ ; ver. 22. Ἡλίαςεἶ ;] The whole appearance of John reminded them of Elias:— see Matthew 3:4, and compare 2 Kings 1:8. Besides, his announcement that the Kingdom of God was at hand, naturally led them to the prophecy Malachi 4:5, Lightfoot cites from the Rabbinical books testimonies that the Jews expected a general purification or baptism before the coming of the Messiah (from Ezekiel 36:25, Ezekiel 36:26, and Zechariah 13:1), and that it would be administered by Elias. κ . λ . Οὐκεἰμί ] The right explanation of this answer seems to be the usual one,— that the deputation asked the question in a mistaken and superstitious sense, meaning Elias bodily come down from heaven, who was expected to forerun and anoint the Messias. (Our Lord seems to refer to the same extravagant notion in Matthew 11:14, εἰθέλετεδέξασθαι , αὐτόςἐστινἩλ . ὁμέλλωνἔρχεσθαι .) In this sense, John was not Elias; nor indeed in any other sense, was he Elias:— but only (Luke 1:17) ἐνπνεύματικαὶδυνάμειἩλίου . ὁπροφ . εἶσύ ;] From the prophecy of Moses, Deuteronomy 18:15, Deuteronomy 18:18, the Jews expected some particular prophet to arise,— distinct from the Messiah (this distinction however was not held by all, see ch. 6:14),— whose coming was, like that of Elias, intimately connected with that of the Messiah Himself: see ch. 7:40, 41. In Matthew 16:14 we have ‘ Jeremiah, or one of the prophets’ apparently = this expected prophet. There seem to have been various opinions about him;— all however agreeing in this, that he was to be one of the old prophets raised from the dead (see also 2 Macc. 2:1-8). This John was not: and he therefore answers this also in the negative. 22. Notice— they ever ask about his person: he ever refers them to his office. He is no one— a voice merely: it is the work of God, the testimony to Christ which is every thing. So the formalist ever in the church asks Who is he? while the witness for Christ only exalts, only cares for Christ’ s work. 23. These words, which by the other Evangelists are spoken of John as the fulfilment of the prophecy, appear from this place to have been first so used by himself. They introduce the great closing section of the prophecy of Isaiah (ch. 40-66) so full of the rich promises and revelations of the Messiah and His kingdom. εὐθύνατε is used as compendiously expressing ἑτοιμάσατε … εὐθείαςποιεῖτε . By implication, the Baptist, quoting this opening prophecy of himself, announces the approaching fulfilment of the whole section. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 2:1-11. The miracle of turning water into wine: the first fulfilment of the announcement in ch. 1:51: see ver. 11. 1. τῇτρίτῃ — reckoned from the day of Nathanael’ s calling. There would thus be but one day between that event and the marriage. Κανᾷτ . Γ .] See ch. 4:46;— not far from Capernaum. Josephus (Life, § 16) calls it κώμητῆςΓαλιλαίας . There is a Kanah in Joshua 19:28, in the tribe of Asher, which must be distinct from this. Jerome however in his Onomasticon believes it to have been the same. It was the residence, and probably birth-place, of Nathanael. If his calling took place in its neighbourhood, our Lord may have gone on and spent the intervening day at Nazareth. Dr. Robinson, Bib. Res. iii. 204 ff., satisfactorily establishes that Kâ na-el-Jelî l, about 3 hours n. ½ e. from Nazareth, is the site of this miracle. The name is identical, and so stands in the Arabic version of the N.T. He shews this to have been recognized in early tradition, and its honour to have been only recently usurped by Kefr Kenna, a village 1½ hour n.e. from Nazareth, on one of the roads to Tiberias. [See a very interesting description of Kâ na-el-Jelî l in “ The Land and the Book,” pp. 426, 427. ἡμήτηρτ . Ἰ .] John never names her, as being already well known (Lü cke): or perhaps more probably from his own intimate connexion with her, in pursuance of the injunction ch. 19:26, 27. He never names either himself, or his own brother, James. 2. ἐκλήθη , not for a pluperfect:— was invited: the historical past. κ . οἱμαθ . αὐτ .] It does not appear who these were, unless we assume that they were those called in ch. 1., which seems most probable. John himself was most likely present. He does not relate so circumstantially any thing which he had not witnessed. In this case, there must have been some other reason for the invitation, besides mere previous acquaintance. This would be the probable reason for Jesus Himself being invited; but the disciples, being from various places in the district, can hardly all have been (De Wette) friends of the family. The fact of Jesus having attached disciples to Himself must have been known, and they were doubtless invited from consideration to Him. Our Lord at once opens His ministry with the character which He gives of himself Matthew 11:18, Matthew 11:19, as distinguished from the asceticism of John. He also, as Trench admirably remarks (Miracles, edn. 2, p. 98, note), gives us his own testimony against the tendency which our indolence ever favours, of giving up those things and occasions to the world and the devil, which we have not Christian boldness to mingle in and purify. Even Cyprian, for instance, proscribes such festivals,— “ nuptiarum festa improba et convivia lasciva vitentur, quorum periculosa contagio est.” De Habitu Virginum, ch. 21. p. 460. And such is the general verdict of modern religionism, which would keep the leaven distinct from the lump, for fear it should become unleavened. The especial honour conferred upon marriage by the Lord should also be noticed. “ He here adorned and beautified it with his presence, and first miracle that He wrought.” 3. There is no necessity to suppose that the feast had lasted several days, as De Wette and Lü cke do. It has been suggested that the unexpected presence of the disciples may have occasioned a failure in the previously sufficient supply: a gloss in the old latin cod. Rhedigerianus has, “ et factum est per multam turbam vocatorum vinum consummari.” The mother of Jesus evidently is in a position of authority (see ver. 5) in the house, which was probably that of a near relative. The conjectures and traditions on the subject are many, but wholly unsatisfactory. A graver question arises as to the intent with which this οἶνονοὐκἔχ . was said. She cannot have had from experience any reason to suppose that her Son would work a miracle, for this (ver. 11) was His first. Chrysostom suggests (so also Theophyl., , and Neander, L. J. p. 271) that, knowing Him to be Who He was, she had been by the recent divine acknowledgment of Him and His calling disciples to Himself, led to expect the manifestation of his Messianic power about this time; and here seemed an occasion for it. Some of the other explanations are: “ that she had always found Him a wise counsellor, and mentioned the want to Him merely that He might suggest some way of remedying it.” Cocceius, cited by Trench. “ Velim discedas, ut ceteri item discedant, antequam penuria patefiat.” Bengel. “ Ut pia aliqua exhortatione convivis tæ dium eximeret, ac simul levaret pudorem sponsi.” Calvin, cited by Lü cke. “ Jesus had wrought miracles, but in secret, before this.” Tholuck. On the whole, the most probable explanation is that of Lü cke, which somewhat modifies the first here mentioned,— that our Lord Himself had recently given some reason to expect that He would shew forth His glory by wonderful works. So, very nearly, Stier, R. J. i. 38, edn. 2. 4. The answer of our Lord is beyond question one of reproof, and disclaimer of participation in the grounds on which the request was made. See instances, besides reff., in Joshua 22:24: Mark 1:24. And so all the early expositors understood it. Irenæ us (iii. 16. 6, p. 206) says, “ Dominus repellens ejus intempestivam festinationem, dixit,” &c.;— and Chrysostom, ἐβούλετο .… ἑαυτὴνλαμπροτέρανποιῆσαιδιὰτοῦπαιδός , and therefore He σφοδρότερονἀπεκρίνατο . Hom. xxi. in Joh., vol. viii. p. 122. The Romanist expositors mostly endeavour to divest the answer of any aspect of rebuke, and maintain that it was so uttered for our sakes alone, to teach us that He did not perform His miracles from regard to human affinity, but solely from love and His object of manifesting His glory. So Maldonatus. And this is true:— but first among those to be taught this, was she herself, who had tempted Him to work a miracle from that regard. It has perhaps not been enough noticed, that in this answer the Lord declares His period of subjection to her as His earthly parent to be at an end. Henceforth His thoughts are not her thoughts. At twelve years of age, see Luke 2:49, He answers ‘ thy father and I,’ by ‘ My Father:’ — now, He is to be no longer before the world as Mary’ s son, but as sanctified by the Father and sent into the world:— compare Matthew 12:48-50, and Luke 11:27, Luke 11:28, and see Stier’ s admirable remarks, R. J. i. 39, edn. 2, also Olshausen’ s, ii. 81. γύναι ] There is no reproach in this term: but rather respect. The Lord henceforth uses it towards her, not calling her ‘ mother,’ even on the Cross (see ch. 19:26), doubtless for the reason alleged above. οὔπωἥκ . ἡὥραμου ] This expression is generally used in John of the time of the Death of Christ: see reff. But it is only so used because His death is in those passages the subject naturally underlying the narrative. It is, any fixed or appointed time;— and therefore here, the appointed time of His self-manifestation by miracles. This time was not yet come, but was close at hand. Some have supposed that the wine was not yet wholly exhausted, and that our Lord would wait till the miracle should be undoubted (so Trench, p. 192): but Stier well remarks that the known depth of all His early sayings forbids us from attaching only this meaning to it;— and he sees in it a reference to the great marriage-feast and the new fruit of the vine in the Kingdom of God (i. 41, edn. 2). If this be so, it can be only in the background; the words must have had a present meaning, and I believe it to be, ‘ My time, the time at which, from the Father’ s appointment and my own concurring will, I am to begin miraculous working, is not yet arrived: forestall it not.’ Very similarly He speaks, ch. 7:6, to His brethren, and yet afterwards goes up to the feast. The notion that ἡὥραμου refers to the hour of our Lord’ s human infirmity on the Cross when (ch. 19:27) He “ acknowledged her as His mother,” Wordsw., seems wholly unfounded. Where do we find any such special acknowledgment there? And why should we go out of our way for a fanciful sense of words which bear an excellent meaning as referring to circumstances then present? 5. There certainly seems beneath this narrative to lie some incident which is not told us. For not only is Mary not repelled by the answer just given, but she is convinced that the miracle will be wrought, and she is not without an anticipation of the method of working it: for how should He require the aid of the servants, except the miracle were to take place according to the form here related? I believe we shall find, when all things are opened to us, that there had been a previous hint given her,— where or how I would not presume to say,— by our Lord, of His intention and the manner of performing it, and that her fault was, the too rash hastening on of what had been His fixed purpose. 6. These vessels were for the washings usual at feasts: see Mark 7:4. There could be no collusion or imposture here, as they were water-vessels, and could have no remnants of wine in them (see also ver. 10). And the large quantity which they held could not have been brought in unobserved. The μετρητής is probably = the Jewish נ ּ ַ ח (which, Jos. Antt. viii. 2. 9, held 72 ξέσται = the Attic μετρητής = 8 gallons 7· 4 pints), and stands for it in the LXX, ref. 2 Chron. According to this, the quantity of wine thus created would = 6 × (2 or 3) × (8 gallons 7· 4 pints) = 6 × (between 17 and 25 gallons) = say, 6 × 21 gallons = 126 gallons. The large quantity thus created has been cavilled at by unbelievers. We may leave them to their cavils with just one remark,— that He who creates abundance enough in this earth to “ put temptation in men’ s way,” acted on this occasion analogously with His known method of dealing. We may answer an error on the other side (if it be on the other side), by saying, that the Lord here most effectually and once for all stamps with His condemnation that false system of moral reformation, which would commence by pledges to abstain from intoxicating liquors. He pours out His bounty for all, and He vouchsafes His grace to each for guidance; and to endeavour to evade the work which He has appointed for each man,— by refusing the bounty, to save the trouble of seeking the grace, is an attempt which must ever end in degradation of the individual motives, and in social demoralization,— whatever present apparent effects may follow its first promulgation. One visible sign of this degradation, in its intellectual form, is the miserable attempt made by some of the advocates of this movement, to shew that the wine here and in other places of Scripture is unfermented wine, not possessing the power of intoxication. The filling with water, and drawing out wine, is all that is related. “ The moment of the miracle,” says Lü cke, “ is rather understood than expressed. It seems to lie between vv.7 and 8” (i. 471). The process of it is wholly out of the region of our imagination. In order for wine to be produced, we have the growth and ripening of the grape; the crushing of it in proper vessels; the fermentation;— but here all these are in a moment brought about in their results, by the same Power which made the laws of nature, and created and unfolded the capacities of man. See below on ver. 11. 8. The ἀρχιτρίκλινος (συμποσίαρχος , ἐπιμελητὴςτοῦσυμποσίου , Euthym.) seems to be the same with the ἡγούμενος spoken of, Sir. 35 (32:) 1, and with the Latin rex, or magister, convivii. It would seem (from Sir. l. c.) that he was one of the guests raised to the post of presiding over the arrangements of the feast. This is however doubted by the older Commentators (Severus in the Catena, Lü cke, i. 472), who make him not one of the guests, but a person holding this especial office, and attending on feasts. Here, he tastes the wine; and therefore probably was a guest himself. Lü cke quotes from Petronius “ triclinarches.” 9. οἱἠντληκότες ] This is the participle of the pluperf. (as well as of the perf.), and is here to be so rendered— who had drawn the water. 10. The saying of the ἀρχ . is a general one, not applicable to the company then present. We may be sure that the Lord would not have sanctioned, nor ministered to, actual drunkenness. Only those who can conceive this, will find any difficulty here; and they will find difficulties every where. The account of the practice referred to is, that the palates of men become after a while dull, and cannot distinguish between good wine and bad. Pliny (Nat. Hist. xiv. 13) speaks of persons “ qui etiam convivis (vina) alia quam sibimetipsis ministrant, aut procedente mensa subjiciunt.” But the practice here described is not precisely that of which Pliny speaks, nor is there any meanness to be charged on it: it is only that, when a man has some kinds of wine choicer than others, he naturally produces the choicest, to suit the most discriminating taste. With regard to the word μεθυσθῶσιν , while there is no reason here to press its ordinary meaning, so neither is there any to shrink from it, as uttered by the ἀρχιτρίκλινος . The safest rendering is that of Tyndall and Cranmer, “ when men be dronke;” “ cum inebriati fuerint,” Vulg. 11. Without the article before ἀρχήν (see . in digest) it is This wrought Jesus as the beginning of his miracles:— ἀρχή being the predicate. This assertion of John excludes all the apocryphal miracles of the Gospel of the Infancy, and such like works, from credit. σημεῖον , which occasionally occurs in the other Gospels and the Acts in this absolute sense of a miracle (see reff.), is St. John’ s ordinary word for it. Cf. Luthardt, p. 62. τὴνδόξαναὐτ .] The glory, namely, which is referred to in ch. 1:14, where see note. It was a miracle eminently shewing forth the glory of the λόγος , δι ʼ οὗπάνταἐγένετο , in His state of having become flesh. And this ‘ believing on Him,’ here predicated of the disciples, was certainly a higher faith than that which first led them to Him. They obtained new insight into His power;— not yet reflectively, so as to infer what all this implied, but so as to increase their faith and trust in Him. Again and again ‘ they believed:’ new degrees of faith being attained; just as this has since been the case, and will continue to be, in the Church, in the continual providential development of the Christian spirit,— the leavening of the whole lump by degrees. This important miracle, standing as it does at the very entrance of the official life of Christ, has been the subject of many doubts, and attempts to get rid of, or explain away, the power which was here manifested. But never did a narrative present a more stubborn inflexibility to the wresters of Scripture:— never was simple historical veracity more strikingly stamped on any miracle than on this. And doubtless this is providentially so arranged: see the objections to it treated, and some admirable concluding remarks, in Lü cke, i. 478. To those who yet seek some sufficient cause for the miracle being wrought, we may— besides the conclusive answer that we are not in a position to treat this question satisfactorily,— assign the unmistakeable spiritual import of the change here made, as indicating the general nature of the beneficent work which the Lord came on earth to do. So Cornelius a Lapide (Trench, p. 113, edn. 2, note): “ Christus initio suæ præ dicationis mutans aquam in vinum significabat se legem Mosaicam, instar aquæ insipidam et frigidam, conversurum in Evangelium gratiæ quæ instar vini est, generosa, sapida, ardens, et efficax.” Similarly Eusebius, Augustine, Bernard, and Gregory the Great. Trench, ibid. 12-4:54. First manifestation of Himself as the Son of God:— and herein, 2:13-3:36, in Jerusalem and Judæ a. 12. κατέβη , because Capernaum lay on the lake,— Cana higher up the country. There is no certainty as to this visit, whether or not it is the same with that hinted at in Luke 4:23: so that no chronological inferences can be built on the hypothesis with any security. On οἱἀδελφοὶ [αὐτοῦ ] see Matthew 13:55 and note. Notice the transition from His private to His public life. His mother and brethren are still with Him, attached merely by nature: His disciples, newly attached by faith. In the next verse He has cast off His mere earthly ties for His work. Also in the οὐπολλὰςἡμ ., notice less a mere chronological design, than one to shew that He lost no time after His first miracle, in publicly manifesting Himself as the Son of God. 13-22. The first official visit to Jerusalem, at a Passover: and cleansing of the Temple. 13. No data are given to determine whether the reason of the short stay at Capernaum was the near approach of the Passover. Nothing is said of those who accompanied Jesus: but at all events, His already called disciples would be with Him (see ver. 22, and ch. 3:22), and among them in all probability the Evangelist himself:— but not the rest of the Twelve, who were not yet called. Of this visit, the synoptic narrative records nothing. 14. On the distinctness of this cleansing from that related in Matthew 21:12 ff., see note there. ἐντῷἱερῷ ] In the court of the Gentiles, the ἔξωθενἱερόν , as distinguished from the ναός , the inner temple. This market appears to have sprung up since the captivity, with a view to the convenience of those Jews who came from a distance, to provide them with the beasts for offering, and to change their foreign money into the sacred shekel, which alone was allowed to be paid in for the temple capitation-tax (Matthew 17:24 ff.). This tax was sometimes, as in Matt. l. c., paid elsewhere than in Jerusalem; but generally there, and in the temple. The very fact of the market being held there would produce an unseemly mixture of sacred and profane transactions, even setting aside the abuses which would be certain to be mingled with the traffic. It is to the former of these evils that our Lord makes reference in this first cleansing; in the second, to the latter. 15. The σχοινία were probably the rushes which were littered down for the cattle to lie on. That our Lord used the scourge on the beasts only, not on the sellers of them, is almost necessarily contained in the form of the sentence here: the τάτεπρόβατακ . τ . βόας being as it stands with τε and καί , merely epexegetical of πάντας , not conveying new particulars. So that it should be rendered as in A.V.R., “ He drove all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen.” (ἐξέχεεν is the aor., not the resolved form of the imperfect: cf. Aristoph. Nub. 75, and see Lobeck’ s note on Phryn. p. 222.) It has been imagined, that He dealt more mildly with those who sold the doves, which were for the offerings of the poor. But this was not so: He dealt alike with all. No other way was open with regard to them, than to order them to take their birds away. This cleansing of the temple was in the direct course of His manifestation as the Messiah. Immediately after the prophetic announcement of the Forerunner, Malachi 3:1, is that of the Lord’ s coming suddenly to His temple, and purifying it. This act also answers (but like the fulfilment last mentioned, only in an imperfect and still prophetic sense) to the declaration of the Baptist “ Whose fan is in His hand,” &c., Matthew 3:12. His proceeding was not altogether unexampled nor unauthorized, even in an uncommissioned person: for all had the right to reform an abuse of this sort, and the zealots put this right in practice. The disciples by their allusion in ver. 17 seem to refer the action to this latter class. 16. τοῦπατρόςμου ] The coincidence with Luke 2:49 is remarkable. By this expression thus publicly used, our Lord openly announces His Messiahship. Nathanael had named Him ‘ the Son of God’ with this meaning— see on ch. 1:50,— and these words, coupled with the expectation which the confession of John the Baptist would arouse, could leave no doubt on the minds of the Jews as to their import: see on ch. 3:2. οἶκ . ἐμπ .] Not yet σπήλαιονλῃστῶν , as at the end of His ministry: see above on ver. 14. 17. ἐμνήσθησαν , at the time, not afterwards, which would have been expressed, as in ver. 22. But the very remembrance itself was prophetic. The καταφαγεῖν spoken of in that passion-Psalm, was the marring and wasting of the Saviour’ s frame by His zeal for God and God’ s Church, which resulted in the buffeting, the scourging, the Cross. καταφάγεται is a well-known future, contracted from καταφαγήσεται : see reff. and cf. the prophecy, 4 Kings 9:36, καταφάγονταιοἱκύνεςτὰςσάρκαςἹεζάβελ . 18. On the demand of the Jews, see Deuteronomy 13:1-3. It was not only to justify His having driven out the abomination; this any one might have done;— but to justify the mission and the whole course of action which the words τοῦπατρόςμου implied. They used the same expression at the end of His ministry, Matthew 21:23. 19. This answer of our Lord has been involved in needless difficulty. That [in uttering the words τὸνναὸντοῦτον ] He pointed to His own Body, is inconceivable;— for thus both the Jews and His own disciples must have understood Him, which (see vv. 20, 22) neither of them did. That He implied [in saying Λύσατετ . ν . τ .] that their lawless proceedings in the temple would at last bring it to an end, is equally inconceivable; both on account of the latter part of His declaration, which would thus have no meaning,— and because of the use of the word ναός ,— which was the holy and the holiest place, the temple itself,— as distinguished from τὸἱερόν , the whole enceinte of the sacred buildings. Stier has well remarked (i. 48, 49, edn. 2) that our Lord in this saying comprehended in the reality,— His own Body, its type and symbol,— the temple then before them. That temple, with all its ordinances and holy places, was but the shadow of the Christian Church;— that, the type of the Body of the Lord, represented the Church, which is veritably His Body. And so the saying was fulfilled by the slaying of His actual Body, in which rejection of Him the destruction of the Jewish temple and city was involved,— and the raising of that Body after three days, in which resurrection we, all the members of His new glorified Body, are risen again. It is for want of keeping in mind this width and depth of the Lord’ s sayings, that so many Commentators have fallen into error here and elsewhere in interpreting them. Most of the best German expositors, e.g. Lü cke, Neander (L. J. 283), and even Olshausen, find insuperable difficulty in the exposition given by the Evangelist of these words, and even contend that it could not have been the right one. But surely those who believe the Apostles to have been under the special influence of the Holy Spirit in their work of witnessing to and bringing out the truth of the sayings and doings of the Lord, cannot take this ground. It is a wholly distinct matter from a chronological inaccuracy, or a report of the same occurrence varying in minor details; such things the Spirit may have, and has as matter of fact, for special reasons permitted in the Evangelists; but we have here,— assumed the genuineness of our Gospel, on which none of these writers have a doubt,— the positive declaration of an Apostle (and what an Apostle) of the meaning of the Lord’ s saying;— which I do not think we are at liberty to question, on any, even the most moderate view, of the inspiration of the Scriptures. The difficulties attending the interpretation are,— besides the double meaning which I have treated above,— (1) the use of the imperative, as applied to the death of Christ. Olshausen contends that it must be mandatory, and cannot be hypothetical. But surely Matthew 12:33 is an instance in point, as adduced by De Wette, for the hypothetical meaning: and usages exactly like that in our text are found in the reff. (v): see Winer, Gram. edn. 6, § 43. 2. (2) The words ἐγερῶαὐτόν ,— seeing that the resurrection of the Lord is ever spoken of as the work of the Father. Yes,— but by power committed to Christ Himself: see ch. 10:18, where this is distinctly asserted; and ch. 6:39, 40, 44, where it is implied, for He is the first fruits of them that sleep,— and (though the whole course of His working was after the will of the Father,— and in the Spirit, which wrought in Him) strictly and truly raised Himself from the dead in the sense here intended. (3) The utterance of such a prophecy at so early a period of His official life. But it was not a prophecy known and understood,— but a dark saying, from which no one could then draw an inference as to His death or resurrection. The disciples did not understand it; and I cannot agree with Stier that the Jews could have had any idea of such being His meaning. Chrys. (Hom. xxiii. in Joan. p. 134) says, πολλὰτοιαῦταφθέγγεταιτοῖςμὲντότεοὐκὄνταδῆλα , τοῖςδὲμετὰταῦταἐσόμενα . τίνοςδὲεἵνεκεντοῦτοποιεῖ ; ἵναδειχθῇπροειδὼςἄνωθεντὰμετὰταῦτα , ὅτανἐξέλθῃκαὶτῆςπροῤῥήσεωςτὸτέλος , ὃδὴκαὶἐπὶτῆςπροφητείαςταύτηςγέγονεν . Lü cke remarks, that the circumstance of the words being spoken so long before his trial by the Sanhedrim, would make it more easy for the false witnesses to distort them. This they did, but not so as to agree with one another. They reported it, ‘ I can destroy,’ &c., which makes a wide difference, and represents our Lord as an enemy of the temple (Matthew 26:61), and some added to τὸνν . τ .,— τ . χειροποίητον , and that He would raise another ἀχειροποίητον (Mark 14:58). 20. The building of the temple by Herod the Great is stated by Josephus, in Antt. xv. 11. 1, to have been begun in the eighteenth year of his reign; in B. J. i. 21. 1, in the fifteenth: the difference being made by counting his reign from the death of Antigonus, or from his appointment by the Romans, see Antt. xvii. 8. 1. Reckoning from this latter, we shall have twenty years till the birth of Christ, and thirty years since that event, from which fifty, however, four must be taken, since our era is four years too late. This gives forty-six. The temple was not completed till a.d. 64, under Herod Agrippa II., and the procurator Albinus; so that ᾠκοδομήθη , was in building, must refer to the greater part of the work now completed. The sense of this aor. is curiously illustrated by a passage in Ezra 5:16, τότεΣαβανασὰρἐκεῖνοςἧλθεκαὶἔδωκεθεμελίουςτοῦοἴκουτοῦθεοῦἐνἹερουσαλήμ , καὶἀπὸτότεἕωςτοῦνῦνᾠκοδομήθηκαὶοὐκἐτελέσθη . 22. τῇγραφῇ , by all analogy, must mean the O.T. scriptures. That the resurrection of the Lord is the subject of O.T. prophecy, we find in several passages of the N.T., see ch. 20:9: Luke 24:26, Luke 24:27: 1 Corinthians 15:4. At first sight it appears difficult to fix on any passage in which it is directly announced: but with the deeper understanding of the Scriptures which the Holy Spirit gave the Apostles and still gives the Christian Church, such prophecies as that in Psa_16 are recognized as belonging to Him in Whom alone they are properly fulfilled: see also Hosea 6:2. 23-25. Many believe on Jesus at the Passover: His knowledge of their character, and withholding of Himself from them. 23. As analogous with ἐντῷπάσχαἐντῇἑορτῇ , see ch. 6:4. θεωρ . αὐτ . τὰσημ . ἅἐπ .] ἐπίστευονεἰςαὐτόν , ἀλλ ʼ οὐβεβαίως . ἐκεῖνοιγὰρἀκριβέστερονἐπίστευον , ὅσοιμὴδιὰτὰσημεῖαμόνον , ἀλλὰκαὶδιὰτὴνδιδασκαλίαναὐτοῦἐπίστευον . Euthym. What miracles these were, is not related:— certainly some notable ones, see ch. 3:2. The mention of them precludes us from understanding ch. 4:54, as indicating that the healing of the ruler’ s son was absolutely His second miracle. 24, 25. The repetition of ἐπίστ . has been regarded (Lü cke, De Wette) as a sort of play on the word. But I should rather set it down to the simplicity of John’ s style. The meaning is, He did not trust himself to them,— i.e. treat them as true and earnest disciples: they entered into no spiritual relation with Him, and He in consequence into none with them. The fact of this being narrated shews that it made an impression on the Evangelist, and led him perhaps first to the conclusion which he here expresses, and which higher knowledge enabled him afterwards to place, as he here does, on its right ground:— His knowing what was in man. Nothing less than divine knowledge is here set forth; the words are even stronger than if τῶνἀνθ . and ἐντοῖςἀνθ . had been used. Then some reference might have been imagined to the persons here mentioned; but now, the singular is, and must be on all hands, purely generic,— as in E. V. Chap. 3:1-21. The Lord’ s discourse with Nicodemus,— one of these believers on account of His Miracles— on the spiritual nature of the kingdom of God and the necessity of the new birth. 1. We have in the Talmud (see Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in loc.) a Nicodemus ben Gorion, who was properly called Bonai, and said to have been a disciple of Jesus: but he is found living at the destruction of Jerusalem. This might certainly have been; still it must be quite uncertain whether he be the same with this Nicodemus. He is mentioned again ch. 7:50; 19:39. He was a member of the Sanhedrim (ἄρχων , see reff.), and, besides, a νομοδιδάσκαλος (ver. 10). 2. νυκτός — for fear of the Jews: see ch. 12:42. The discourse seems to have taken place between Jesus and Nicodemus alone,— and may have been related by our Lord to the Evangelist afterwards. If this be deemed improbable (though I do not see why it should),— of the two other alternatives I would rather believe that John was present, than that Nicodemus should have so minutely related a conversation which in his then position he could not understand. οἴδαμεν ] This plural may be merely an allusion to others who had come to the same conclusion, e.g. Joseph of Arimathea; or it may express that Nicodemus was sent in the name of several who wished to know the real character of this Person who wrought such miracles. It is harsh, in this private conversation, to take the plural as merely of singular import, as Lightfoot seems to do. His other rendering, “ vulgo agnoscitur,” is better,— but not satisfactory; for the common people did not generally confess it, and Nicodemus, as an ἄρχων , would not be likely to speak in their name (see ch. 7:49). I would rather take it to express the true conviction respecting Jesus, of that class to which Nicodemus belonged— the ἄρχοντες : and see in it an important fact, that their persecutions and murder of the Prince of Life hence found their greatest aggravation, that they were carried on against the conclusions of their own minds, out of bitter malice, and worldly disappointment at His humble and unobtrusive character, and the spiritual purity and self-sacrifice which He inculcated. Still this must not, though undoubtedly it has truth in it, be carried too far: cf. Acts 3:17 note, and Acts 13:27: 1 Corinthians 2:8. Some degree of ignorance there must necessarily have been in all of them, even Caiaphas included, of our Lord’ s Office and Person. Stier (iv. 11 ff., edn. 2) seems to think that Nicodemus, by using the plural, is sheltering himself from expressing his own conviction, so as to be able to draw back again if necessary. ἐλήλυθας ] Stier (and Schleiermacher, cited by Stier, iv. 12, edn. 2, note) thinks that there is involved in this word a recognition by Nicodemus of the Messianic mission of Jesus:— that it expresses His being ὁἐρχόμενος (Matthew 11:3 .). It is never used of any but the Messiah, except by the Lord Himself, when speaking of John the Baptist as the subject of prophecy (see Matthew 11:14 al.). διδάσκαλος ] In this and the following words, Nicodemus seems to be cautiously withdrawing from his admission being taken as expressing too much. For who of the Jews ever expected a teacher to come from God? They looked for a King, to sit on David’ s throne,— a Prophet, to declare the divine will;— but the Messiah was never designated as a mere teacher, till the days of modern Socinianism. So that he seems trying to qualify or recall his ἐλήλυθας by this addition. The following words exhibit the same cautious inconsistency. No one can do, &c. unless— we expect some strong expression of the truth, such as we had from Nathanael in ch. 1:50, but the sentence drops to merely— ‘ God be with him,’ which is a very poor and insufficient exponent of ἀπὸθ . ἐλήλυθας . Against this inconsistency,— the inner knowledge that the Kingdom of God was come, and He who was to found it, on the one hand,— and the rationalizing endeavour to reduce this heavenly kingdom to mere learning, and its Founder to a mere teacher, on the other,— is the following discourse directed. 3. We are not to imagine that any thing is wanting to complete the sense or connexion. Our Lord replies, It is not learning, but life, that is wanted for the Messiah’ s Kingdom; and life must begin by birth. Luther (Stier, iv. 17, edn. 2) says: “ My teaching is not of doing and leaving undone, but of a change in the man (nicht von Thun und Lassen, fondern von Werden);— so that it is, not new works done, but a new man to do them; not another life only, but another birth.” And only by this means can Nicodemus gain the teaching for which he is come,— ἰδεῖντ . β . τ . θ .,— ‘ become a disciple of Christ:’ — ἴδοι , τουτέστινοήσοι , Thl.,— ‘ understand, by sharing’ — ‘ have any conception of.’ ἄνωθεν — οἱμὲν “ ἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦ ” φασιν , οἱ “ ἐξἀρχῆς .” ,— who, as also , explains γεν . ἄνωθ . by παλιγγενεσία :— , , and Thl. taking the other meaning. The true meaning is to be found by taking into account the answer of Nicodemus, who obviously understood it of a new birth in mature life. Born afresh would be a better rendering than ‘ born again,’ being closer to the meaning of ἄνωθεν , ‘ from the very beginning;’ — ‘ unless a man begin his life anew altogether (πἁλινἄνωθεν , Galatians 4:9), he cannot’ &c. It is not impossible that the other meaning may lie beneath this,— as the βασιλεία is τοῦθεοῦ , and so must the birth be;— but Grotius has remarked that in Hebrew and Aramaic (in one of which languages our Lord, discoursing with a Rabbinical Jew, probably spoke) there is no word of double meaning corresponding to ἄνωθεν :— so that He must have expressed it, as Nicodemus understood it, of an entirely new birth. That John never uses the word elsewhere in this sense (Lü cke) is here of little weight, for he uses it only three times more, and never with a verb cognate to γεννάομαι . The Evangelist most likely chose the Greek expression γεν . ἄνωθ . as strictly corresponding to the term ἀναγεννᾶσθαι , which, when he wrote, was in common use in the Church: see 1 Peter 1:3, 1 Peter 1:23. Justin Martyr, as Bp. Wordsworth reminds us, quotes as our Lord’ s saying, Apol. i. 61, p. 79, ἆνμὴἀναγεννήθητε , οὐμὴεἰσέλθητεεἰςτ . βασιλείαντῶνοὐρανῶν : probably mixing this with Matthew 18:3. On the birth itself, see below, ver. 5. 4. It is impossible that Nicodemus can have so entirely and stupidly misunderstood our Lord’ s words, as his question here would seem to imply. The idea of new birth was by no means alien from the Rabbinical views. They described a proselyte when baptized as “ sicut parvulus jam natus.” Lightfoot in loc. I agree with Stier in thinking that there was something of the spirit that would not understand, and the disposition to turn to ridicule what he heard. But together with this there was also considerable real ignorance. The proselyte might be regarded as born again, when he became one of the seed of Abraham: this figure would be easily explained on the Judaical view: but that every man should need this, was beyond Nicodemus’ s comprehension. He therefore rebuts the assertion with a reductio ad absurdum, which in spirit expresses, as in ch. 6:60,— ‘ This is an hard saying; who can hear it?’ γέρωνὤν ] Probably he himself was old, and he instances his own case. 5. Our Lord passes by the question of Nicodemus without notice, further than that this His second assertion takes as it were the ground from under it, by explaining the token and means of the new birth. There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the words, that γεννηθῆναιἐξὕδατος refers to the token or outward sign of baptism,— γ . ἐκπνεύματος to the thing signified, or inward grace of the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the views of expositors have been warped. Such we have in Calvin: “ spiritum, qui nos repurgat, et qui virtute sua in nos diffusa vigorem inspirat cœ lestis vitæ ;” — Grotius: “ spiritum aquæ instar emundantem;” — Cocceius: “ gratiam Dei, sordes et vitia abluentem;” — Lampe: “ obedientiam Christi;” — Tholuck, who holds that not Baptism itself, but only its idea, that of cleansing, is referred to;— and others, who endeavour to resolve ὕδατοςκαὶπνεύματος into a figure of ἕνδιὰδυοῖν , so as to make it mean ‘ the cleansing or purifying Spirit.’ All the better and deeper expositors have recognized the co-existence of the two, water and the Spirit. So for the most part the ancients: so Lü cke (in his last edition), De Wette, Neander, Stier, Olshausen, &c. This being then recognized, to what does ὕδωρ refer? At that time, two kinds of baptism were known: that of the proselytes, by which they were received into Judaism,— and that of John, by which, as a preparatory rite, symbolizing repentance, the people were made ready for Him who was to baptize them with the Holy Ghost. But both these were significant of one and the same truth; that namely of the entire cleansing of the man for the new and spiritual life on which he was to enter, symbolized by water cleansing the outward person. Both were appointed means,— the one by the Jewish Church,— the other, stamping that first with approval, by God Himself,— towards their respective ends. John himself declared his baptism to be incomplete,— it was only with water; One was coming, who should baptize with the Holy Ghost. That declaration of his is the key to the understanding of this verse. Baptism, complete, with water and the Spirit, is the admission into the kingdom of God. Those who have received the outward sign and the spiritual grace, have entered into that Kingdom. And this entrance was fully ministered to the disciples when the Spirit descended on them on the day of Pentecost. So that, as spoken to Nicodemus, these words referred him to the baptism of John, which probably (see Luke 7:30) he had slighted. But they were not only spoken to him. The words of our Lord have in them life and meaning for all ages of His Church: and more especially these opening declarations of His ministry. He here unites together the two elements of a complete Baptism which were sundered in the words of the Baptist, ch. 1:33— in which united form He afterwards (Matthew 28:19, Matthew 28:20: Mark 16:16) ordained it as a Sacrament of His Church. Here He speaks of spiritual Baptism, as in ch. 6. of spiritual Communion, and in both places in connexion with the outward conditions and media of these sacraments. It is observable that here, as ordinarily (with a special exception, Acts 10:44 ff.), the outward sign comes first, and then the spiritual grace, vouchsafed in and by means of it where duly received. εἰσελθεῖνεἰς is more than ἰδεῖν above, though no stress is to be laid on the difference. The former word was perhaps used because of Nicodemus’ s expectation of teaching being all that was required: but now, the necessity of a real vital change having been set forth, the expression is changed to a practical one— the entering into the Kingdom of God. 6. The neuter denotes not only the universal application of this truth, but (see Luke 1:35) the very first beginnings of life in the embryo, before sex can be predicated. So Bengel: “ notat ipsa prima stamina vitæ .” The Lord here answers Nicodemus’ s hypothetical question of ver. 4, by telling him that even could it be so, it would not accomplish the birth of which He speaks. In this σάρξ is included every part of that which is born after the ordinary method of generation: even the spirit of man, which, receptive as it is of the Spirit of God, is yet in the natural birth dead, sunk in trespasses and sins, and in a state of wrath. Such ‘ flesh and blood’ cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Corinthians 15:50. But when the man is born again of the Spirit (the water does not appear any more, being merely the outward form of reception,— the less included in the greater), then just as flesh generates flesh, so spirit generates spirit, after its own image, see 2 Corinthians 3:18 fin.; and since the Kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom, such only who are so born can enter into it. 7. The weightiest word here is ὑμᾶς . The Lord did not, could not, say this of Himself. Why?— Because in the full sense in which the flesh is incapacitated from entering the kingdom of God, He was not born of the flesh. He inherited the weakness of the flesh, but His spirit was not, like that of sinful man, alien from holiness and God; and therefore on Him no second birth passed; when the Holy Spirit descended on Him at His baptism, the words spoken by the Father were indicative of past approval, not of renewal. His obedience was accepted as perfect, and the good pleasure of the Father rested on Him. Therefore He includes not Himself in this necessity for the new birth. The μὴθαυμάσῃς applies to the next verse, in which Nicodemus is told that he has things as wonderful around him every day in the natural world. 8. Our Lord might have chosen any of the mysteries of nature to illustrate the point:— He takes that one, which is above others symbolic of the action of the Spirit, and (which in both languages, that in which He spoke, as well as that in which His speech is reported) is expressed by the same word as it. So that the words as they stand apply themselves at once to the Spirit and His working, without any figure;— spiritus ubi vult spirat. Bengel, after Origen and Augustine, takes τὸπν . of the Holy Spirit exclusively: but this can hardly be. The form of the sentence, as well as its import, is against it. The πνεῖ , ἀκούεις , οἶδας , are all said of well-known facts. And the comparison would not hold on that supposition— ‘ As the Spirit is in His working on those born of Him, so is every one that is born of the Spirit.’ But on the other interpretation, we have The wind breatheth, &c.:— so is, i.e. ‘ so it is with’ (see a similar construction Matthew 13:45) every one born of the Spirit. Notice it is not ὁἄνεμος here, but τὸπνεῦμα , the gentle breath of the wind;— and it is heard, not felt;— a case in which the οὐκοἶδαςκ .τ .λ . is more applicable than in that of a violent wind steadily blowing. It is one of those sudden breezes springing up on a calm day, which has no apparent direction, but we hear it rustling in the leaves around. The ὅπουθέλει , in the application, implies the freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17) and unrestrained working of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:11). πᾶςὁγεγ .] Our Lord can hardly, as Stier explains (iv. 48, edn. 2), mean Himself by these words; or, if He does, only inclusively, as being γεγ . ἐκτ . πν .,— not principally. He describes the mystery of the spiritual life: we see its effects, in ourselves, and others who have it; but we cannot trace its beginnings, nor can we prescribe to the Holy Spirit His course: He works in us and leads us on, accompanying us with His witness,— His voice, spiritually discerned. “ Homo in quo spiritus spirat, e spiritu respirat.” Bengel. This saying of the Lord— in contradiction to all so-called Methodism, which prescribes the time and manner of the working of the Spirit— assures us of the manifold and undefinable variety of both these. “ The physiognomies of those who are born again, are as various as those of natural men” (Drä seke, cited by Stier, iv. 50, edn. 2). 9. The question of Nicodemus is evidently still one of unbelief, though no longer of frivolity: see ver. 12. 10. I believe the E. V. is right in rendering ὁδιδ . a master; the article is inserted as required by τοῦ before Ἰσραήλ , which is expressed as giving a solemnity to Ἰσρ . as the people of God. Or is it possible that ὁδιδάσκαλος may merely be meant as one of οἱδιδάσκαλοι I prefer either of these reasons for the presence of the article, to supposing it to have any emphatic meaning. Nicodemus was manifestly in no supereminent place among the ἄρχοντες : see ch. 7:50-52. Still less can I with Bp. Middleton, Gr. Art. pp. 242-3, believe any blame conveyed in the title. [Dean Alford afterwards preferred rendering ὁδιδάσκαλος the teacher; see N.T. for English Readers, and N.T. Authorized Version Revised.] 11. Henceforward the discourse is an answer to the unbelief, and in answering that, to the question (πῶςδύν . τ . γεν .) of Nicodemus: by shewing him the appointed means of this new birth, and of being upheld in the life to which it is the entrance, viz. faith in the Son of God. ὃοἴδαμενλ .… ] Why these plurals? Various interpretations have been given: ἢπερὶἑαυτοῦκαὶτοῦπατρὸςτοῦτόφησιν , ἢπερὶἑαυτοῦμόνομ (Euthym.);— “ Loquitur de se et de Spiritu” (Bengel);— of Himself and the Prophets (Beza, Tholuck);— of Himself and John the Baptist (Knapp);— of Teachers like Himself (Meyer);— of all the born of the Spirit (Lange, Wesley);— of the three Persons in the Holy Trinity (Stier);— or, the plural is only rhetorical (Lü cke, De Wette). I had rather take it as a proverbial saying; q. d. ‘ I am one of those who,’ &c. Our Lord thereby brings out the unreasonableness of that unbelief which would not receive His witness, but made it an exception to the general proverbial rule. οὐλαμβάνετε , addressed still to Nicodemus, and through him to the Jews: not to certain others who were present, as Olsh. supposes. 12. The words μαρτυρίανλαμβάνειν prepared the way for the new idea which is brought forward in this verse— πιστεύειν . Faith is, in the most pregnant sense, ‘ the receiving of testimony;’ because it is the making subjectively real the contents of that testimony. So the πιστεύεινεἰςαὐτόν [see ver. 15] is, the full reception of the Lord’ s testimony; because the burden of that testimony is, grace and truth and salvation by Himself. This faith is neither reasoning, nor knowledge, but a reception of divine Truth declared by One who came from God; and so it is far above reasoning and knowledge:— πιστεύομεν above οἴδαμεν . But what are the ἐπίγεια The matters relating to the new birth which have hitherto been spoken of;— called so because that side of them has been exhibited which is upon earth, and happens among men;— ἃτοῖςἐπὶγῆςἔτιδιατρίβουσινἀνθρώποιςδυνατὰὑπάρξαιτεκαὶνοηθῆναι , Origen. That the parable about the wind is not intended, is evident from κ . οὐπιστεύετε , which in that case would be ‘ do not understand.’ And the ἐπουράνια are the things of which the discourse goes on to treat from this point: viz. the heavenly side of the new birth and salvation of man, in the eternal counsels of God regarding His only-begotten Son. Stier supposes a reference in this verse to Wisd. 9:16, καὶμόλιςεἰκάζομεντὰἐπὶτῆςγῆς , καὶτὰἐνχερσὶνεὑρίσκομενμετὰπόνου , τὰδὲἐνοὐρανοῖςτίςἐξιχνίασεν ; 13. The whole verse seems to have intimate connexion with and reference to Proverbs 30:4; and as spoken to a learned doctor of the law, would recall that verse,— especially as the further question is there asked, ‘ Who hath gathered the wind in His fists?’ , and ‘ What is His name, and what His Son’ s name?’ See also Deuteronomy 30:12, and the citation, Romans 10:6-8. All attempts to explain away the plain sense of this verse are futile and ridiculous. The Son of Man, the Lord Jesus, the Word made Flesh, was in, came down from, heaven,— and was in heaven (heaven about Him, heaven dwelling on earth, ch. 1:51), while here, and ascended up into heaven when He left this earth;— and by all these proofs, speaking in the prophetic language of accomplished Redemption, does the Lord establish, that He alone can speak of τὰἐπουράνια to men, or convey the blessing of the new birth to them. Be it remembered, that He is here speaking proleptically, of results of His course and sufferings on earth,— of the way of regeneration and salvation which God has appointed by Him. He regards therefore throughout the passage, the great facts of redemption as accomplished, and makes announcements which could not be literally acted upon till they had been so accomplished. See vv. 14 ff., whose sense will be altogether lost, unless this ἀναβέβηκεν be understood of His exaltation to be a Prince and a Saviour. ὁὢνἐντῷοὐρ .] See ch. 1:18 and note. Doubtless the meaning involves ‘ whose place is in heaven;’ but it also asserts the being in heaven of the time then present: see ch. 1:51. Stier (iv. 68, edn. 2) speaks well of the majestic ὁὢνἐντῷοὐρανῷ , by which the Lord characterizes His whole life in the flesh between the καταβαίνειν and the ἀναβαίνειν . As uniting in Himself God, whose dwelling is heaven, with man whose dwelling is on earth, He ever was in heaven. And nearly connected with this fact is the transition to His being the fountain of eternal life, in vv. 14 ff.: cf. 1 Corinthians 15:47-50, where the same connexion is strikingly set forth. To explain such expressions as ἀναβαίνεινεἰςτ . οὐρ ., &c., as mere Hebrew metaphors (Lü cke, De Wette, &c.) is no more than saying that Hebrew metaphors were founded on deep insight into divine truth:— these words in fact express the truths on which Hebrew metaphors were constructed. Socinus is quite right, when he says that those who take ἀναβ . εἰςτ . οὐ . metaphorically, must in all consistency take ὁκαταβὰςἐκτ . οὐρ . metaphorically also; “ qualis descensus, talis etiam ascensus.” 14. From this point the discourse passes to the Person of Christ, and Redemption by His Death. The Lord brings before this doctor of the Law the mention of Moses, who in his day by divine command lifted up a symbol of forgiveness and redemption to Israel. καθώς ] We must avoid all such ideas as that our Lord merely compares His death to the elevation of the brazen serpent, as if only a fortuitous likeness were laid hold of by Him. This would leave the brazen serpent itself meaningless, and is an explanation which can only satisfy those who do not discern the typical reference of all the ceremonial dispensation to the Redeemer. It is an important duty of an expositor here, to defend the obvious and only honest explanation of this comparison against the tortuous and inadequate interpretations of modern critics. The comparison lies between the exalted serpent of brass, and the exalted Son of Man. The brazen serpent sets forth the Redeemer. This by recent Commentators (Lü cke, De Wette, and others) is considered impossible: and the tertium comparationis is held to be only ‘ the lifting up.’ But this does not satisfy the construction of the comparison. ‘ The brazen serpent was lifted up: every one who looked on it, lived,’ = ‘ The Son of Man must be lifted up: every one who believes on Him, shall live.’ The same thing is predicated of the two;— both are lifted up; cognate consequences follow,— body-healing and soul-healing (as Erskine, On the Brazen Serpent). There must then be some reason why the only two members of the comparison yet unaccounted for stand where they do,— considering that the brazen serpent was lifted up not for any physical efficacy, but by command of God alone. Now on examination we find this correspondence fully established. The ‘ serpent’ is in Scripture symbolism, the devil,— from the historical temptation in Gen_3. downwards. But why is the devil set forth by the serpent? How does the bite of the serpent operate? It pervades with its poison the frame of its victim: that frame becomes poisoned:— and death ensues. So sin, the poison of the devil, being instilled into our nature, that nature has become σὰρξἁμαρτίας , a poisoned nature,— a flesh of sin. Now the brazen serpent was made in the likeness of the serpents which had bitten them. It represented to the children of Israel the poison which had gone through their frames, and it was hung up there on the banner-staff, as a trophy, to shew them that for the poison, there was healing;— that the plague had been overcome. In it, there was no poison; only the likeness of it. Now was not the Lord Jesus made ἐνὁμοιώματισαρκὸςἁμαρτίας , Romans 8:3? Was not He made ‘ Sin for us, who knew no sin’ (2 Corinthians 5:21)? Did not He, on His Cross, make an open shew of, and triumph over, the Enemy, so that it was as if the Enemy himself had been nailed to that Cross (Colossians 2:15)? Were not Sin and Death and Satan crucified, when He was crucified? ἐκεῖμέν , ἐπεὶδι ʼ ὄφεωςἡβλάβη , δι ʼ ὄφεωςκαὶἡθεραπεία · ἐνταῦθαδέ , ἐπεὶδι ʼ ἀνθρώπουὁθάνατοςεἰσῆλθενεἰςτὸνκόσμον , δι ʼ ἀνθρώπουκαὶἡζωὴπαρεγένετο , Euthym. δεῖ , it is necessary, in the Father’ s counsel— it is decreed, but not arbitrarily;— the very necessity of things, which is in fact but the evolution of the divine Will, made it requisite that the pure and sinless Son of Man should thus be uplifted and suffer: see Luke 24:26. ὑψωθῆναι ] In this word there is more than the mere crucifixion. It has respect in its double meaning (of which see a remarkable instance in Genesis 40:13, Genesis 40:19, E. V.) to the exaltation of the Lord on the Cross, and through the Cross to His Kingdom; and refers back to ἀναβέβηκενεἰςτ . οὐρ . before. Stier quotes the Christian proverb, ‘ Crux scala cæ li.’ 15. The corresponding clause applying to the type is left to be supplied— ‘ And as every one who looked on it was healed, so … ’ πιστ . ἐναὐτῷ ] This expression, here only used by John, implies His exaltation,— see ch. 12:32. It is a belief in (abiding in, see note on ver. 18) His Person being what God by His sufferings and exaltation hath made Him to be, and being that to me. This involves, on the part of the believer, the anguish of the bite of the fiery serpent,— and the earnest looking on Him in Whom sin is crucified, with the inner eye of faith. ἔχῃζ . αἰ .] Just as in the type, God did not remove the fiery serpents,— or not all at once,— but healing was to be found in the midst of them by looking to the brazen serpent (πᾶςὁδεδηγμένοςἰδὼναὐτὸνζήσεται , LXX),— so the temptations and conflicts of sin shall not leave the believer,— but in the midst of these, with the Eye of Faith fixed on the uplifted Son of Man, he has eternal life; perishes not of the bite, but ζήσεται . See on this verse the remarkable passage, Wisd. 16:5-13, where as much of the healing sign is opened as could be expected before the great Antitype Himself appeared. 16. Many Commentators— since the time of Erasmus, who first suggested the notion— have maintained that the discourse of our Lord breaks off here, and the rest, to ver. 21, consists of the remarks of the Evangelist. (So Tholuck, Olshausen, Lü cke, De Wette; which last attributes vv. 13, 14 also to John.) But to those who view these discourses of our Lord as intimately connected wholes, this will be as inconceivable, as the idea of St. Matthew having combined into one the insulated sayings of his Master. This discourse would be altogether fragmentary, and would have left Nicodemus almost where he was before, had not this most weighty concluding part been also spoken to him. This it is, which expands and explains the assertions of vv. 14, 15, and applies them to the present life and conduct of mankind. The principal grounds alleged for supposing the discourse to break off here seem to be that all allusion to Nicodemus is henceforth dropped. But this is not conclusive, for it is obvious that the natural progress of such an interview on his part would be from questioning to listening: and that even had he joined in the dialogue, the Evangelist would not have been bound to relate all his remarks, but only those which, as vv. 2, 4 and 9, were important to bring out his mind and standing-point. That henceforth past tenses are used; making it more probable that the passage was added after the great events alluded to had taken place. But does not our Lord speak here, as in so many other cases, proleptically, of the fulness of the accomplishment of those designs, which in the divine counsels were accomplished? Is not this way of speaking natural to a discourse which is treating of the development of the new birth, itself not yet brought in till the Spirit was given? See a parallel instance, with the Evangelist’ s explanation, ch. 7:37-39. On account of this use of μονογενής , vv. 16, 18, which is peculiar to John. But, as Stier well enquires (iv. 84, edn. 2), whence did John get this word, but from the lips of his Divine Master? Would he have ventured on such an expression, except by an authorization from Him? It is asserted that John often continues our Lord’ s discourses with additions of his own;— and ver. 31, and ch. 1:16, are alleged as instances. Of these, ch. 1:16 is beside the question;— for the whole prologue is spoken in the person of the Evangelist, and the Baptist’ s testimony in ver. 15 is merely confirmatory of ver. 14, and then the connexion goes on with ver. 16. On the untenableness of the view with regard to vv. 31 ff., see notes there. It would besides give us a very mean idea of the honesty or reverence of one who sets forth so sublime a view of the Divinity and Authority of our Lord, to suppose him capable, in any place, of attributing to his Master words and sentiments of his own invention. And that the charge amounts to this, every simple reader can bear testimony. The obvious intention of the Evangelist here is, that the Lord shall have said these words. If our Lord did not say them, but the Evangelist, we cannot stop with the view that he has added his own remarks to our Lord’ s discourse, but must at once pronounce him guilty of an imposture and a forgery. (See Stier, iv. 81 ff., edn. 2.) I conclude therefore on all these grounds that the words following, to ver. 21, cannot be otherwise regarded than as uttered by our Lord in continuation of His discourse. ἠγάπησεν ] The indefinite signifying the universal and eternal existence of that love which God Himself is (1 John 4:8). τὸνκόσμον , the world, in the most general sense, as represented by, and included in, man,— Genesis 3:17, Genesis 3:18, and 1:28;— not, the elect, which would utterly destroy the force of the passage: see on ver. 18. The Lord here reveals Love as the one ground of the divine counsel in redemption,— salvation of men, as its one purpose with regard to them. τὸνυἱὸν … ἔδωκεν ] These words, whether spoken in Hebrew or in Greek, seem to carry a reference to the offering of Isaac; and Nicodemus in that case would at once be reminded by them of the love there required, the substitution there made, and the prophecy there uttered to Abraham, to which ἵναπᾶςὁπιστ . so nearly corresponds. ἔδωκεν — absolute, not merely τῷκόσμῳ — gave up,— παρέδωκεν ,— Romans 8:32; where as Stier remarks, we have again, in the οὐκἐφείσατο , an unmistakeable allusion to the οὐκἐφείσω , said to Abraham, Genesis 22:16. ἵνα … ] By the repetition of this final clause verbatim from ver. 15, we have the identity of the former clauses established: i.e. the uplifting of the Son of Man like the serpent in the wilderness is the manifestation of the Divine Love in the gift of the Son of God:— ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου of ver. 14, = in the strictest sense, ὁυἱὸςαὐτ . ὁμονογ . of ver. 16. 17. The κόσμος ,— the Gentile world,— was according to Jewish ideas to be judged and condemned by the Messiah. This error our Lord here removes. The assertion ch. 9:39, εἰςκρῖμαἐγὼεἰςτ . κόσ . τοῦτ . ἦλθον , is no contradiction to this. The κρῖμα there, as here, results from the separation of mankind into two classes,— those who will and those who will not come to the light; and that result itself is not the purpose why the Son of God came into the world, but is evolved in the accomplishment of the higher purpose, viz. Love, and the salvation of men. Observe, the latter clause does not correspond to the former— it is not ἵνασώζῃτὸνκόσμον ,— but ἵνασωθῇὁκόσμοςδι ʼ αὐτοῦ :— the free will of the κόσμος is by this strikingly set forth, in connexion with vv. 19, 20. Not that the Lord is not the σωτὴρτοῦκόσμου (ch. 4:42), but that the peculiar cast of this passage required the other side of the truth to be brought out. 18. On πιστ . εἰςαὐτ . (which is John’ s usual phrase) the remarks above on ver. 15 apply with little distinction; εἰς giving more the direction of the belief towards, and its resting upon, ἐν its abiding in, Jesus as the Saviour. οὐκρίνεται ] See ch. 5:24, where the same assertion is made more fully; and note there. ἤδηκέκριται , implying,— by no positive act of judgment of mine,— but by the very nature of things themselves. God has provided a remedy for the deadly bite of sin; this remedy the man has not accepted, not taken: he must then perish in his sins: he is already judged and sentenced. μὴπεπίστευκεν ] The perfect implies more than ‘ that faith is a definite act in time’ (Lü cke, De Wette); it sets before us the deliberate choice of the man, q. d. ‘ he hath not chosen to believe’ (Lange, in Stier, iv. 93, edn. 2): see 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:12. εἰςτὸὄν ., not without meaning: that name was Ἰησοῦς , αὐτὸςγὰρσώσειτὸνλαὸναὐτοῦἀπὸτῶνἁμαρτιῶναὐτῶν , Matthew 1:21. The μονογενοῦς also here sets before us the hopelessness of such a man’ s state: he has no other Saviour. 19. The particular nature of this decided judgment is now set forth,— that the Light (see ch. 1:4, 5, 7, and notes) is come into the world (ἐλήλυθεν , in reference perhaps to ἐλήλυθας , ver. 2), and men (= ὁκόσμος , men in general; an awful revelation of the future reception of the Gospel) loved (the perversion of the affections and will is the deepest ruin of mankind) the darkness (see note on ch. 1:5; = the state of sin and unbelief) rather than (not = ‘ and not,’ but as Bengel says, “ Amabilitas lucis eos perculit, sed obhæ serunt in amore tenebrarum,” see ch. 5:35; 12:43: 2 Timothy 3:4) the light, because their deeds were evil (their habits, thoughts, practices,— all these are included,— were perverted). ἠγάπησαν and ἦν are the indefinite aorists, implying the general usage and state of men, when and after the φῶςἐλήλυθενεἰςτ . κόσ . 20. This verse analyses the psychological grounds of the preceding. The φῶς is not here ‘ the common light of day,’ nor light in general: but as before, the Light; i.e. the Lord Jesus, and His salvation: see ver. 21 fin. There is here a difference between φαῦλαπράσσειν , and ποιεῖντὴνἀλήθειαν , which is too remarkable to be passed over,— especially as the same distinction is observed in ch. 5:29,— οἱτὰἀγαθὰποιήσαντεςεἰςἀνάστασινζωῆς , οἱδὲτὰφαῦλαπράξαντεςεἰςἀν . κρίσεως . Bengel, who noticed this, hardly I think gives the right reason for it: “ malitia est irrequieta, est quiddam operosius quam veritas;” nor does Stier fully reach it, “ that πράσ . signifies more a subordination, a being the servants of sin, ἐργάταιἀδικίας , Luke 13:27.” I think the distinction is rather perhaps this,— that πράσσειν is more the habit of action; so that we might say ‘ he that practises evil;’ but ποιεῖν the true doing of good, good fruit, good that remains. He who πράσσει , has nothing but his πρᾶγμα , which is an event, a thing of the past, a source to him only of condemnation, for he has nothing to shew for it, for it is also φαῦλον , worthless; whereas he that ποιεῖ , has his ποίημα ,— he has abiding fruit; his works do follow him. So that the expressions will not perhaps here admit of being interchanged. (See however Romans 7:15-20, where the two verbs are certainly interchanged more than once.) There may possibly be a hint [in the mention of σκότος ver. 19] at the coming by night of Nicodemus, but surely only by a distant implication. He might gather this from what was said, that it would have been better for him to make open confession of Jesus; but we can hardly say that our Lord reproves him for coming even as he did. 21. Who is this ποιῶντ . ἀλήθ .? the end of ch. 1 will best explain to us,— ἐνᾧδόλοςοὐκἔστιν , see also Luke 8:15, and Psa_15. The πράσσωνπονηρά is crooked and perverse; he has a light, which he does not follow; he knows the light, and avoids it; and so there is no truth, singleness, in him; he is a man at variance with himself. But the simple and single-minded is he who knowing and approving the light, comes to it; and comes that he may be carried onward in this spirit of truth and single-mindedness to higher degrees of communion with and likeness to God. “ The good man seeks the light, and to place his works in the light, not from a vain love of praise, but from a desire for communion wherein he finds strength and security,” De Wette. But this is not all: the manifesting his works, that they are wrought in God, is and can be only by the candle of the Lord being kindled within him, and he himself born again in the Kingdom of God: see Psalms 139:23, Psalms 139:24. We hear nothing of the effect produced on Nicodemus by this interview. It certainly did not alienate him from Jesus, see ch. 7:50; 19:39, also ch. 12:42. “ It speaks for the simplicity and historic truthfulness of our Evangelist, that he adds nothing more, and even leaves untold the immediate result which the discourse had.” (Baumgarten-Crusius, in Stier, iv. 102, edn. 2.) 22-36. Removal of Jesus and His disciples into the neighbourhood of the Baptist, who, upon occasion given, bears another notable testimony to Him. 22. μετὰταῦτα ] The sequence is not immediate; for this, John uses μετὰτοῦτο , see ch. 11:7, 11; 19:28. τὴνἸουδαίανγῆν , the rural districts of Judæ a, in distinction from the metropolis. ἐβάπτ ., viz. by means of His disciples: see ch. 4:2, and note. The place is not named: perhaps He did not remain in one fixed spot. 23. The situation of these places is uncertain. Eusebius and Jerome place Salim eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis, and Æ non at the same distance, on the Jordan. If Scythopolis was the ancient Bethshan, both places were in Samaria: and to this agree Epiphanius and the Samaritan chronicle called Abul Phatach. In Judith 4:4, we find mention of ὁαὐλὼνΣαλήμ in Samaria (see note on Hebrews 7:1). An Æ non in the wilderness of Judah is mentioned Joshua 15:61 [(56) ], and ib. ver. 32, ש ׁ ִ ל ְ ח ִ י ם and ע ַ י ִ ן , Σελεεὶμκ . Ἀίν (., κ . Ἀίν B), both in Judah, where it is certainly more probable, both from the text here and from à priori considerations, that John would have been baptizing, than in Samaria. The name ע ַ י נ ָ ן , is an intensive form of ע ַ י ִ ן , a fountain, which answers to the description here given. Both places were West of the Jordan: see ver. 26, and compare ch. 1:28. παρεγ . κ . ἐβ ., i.e. the multitudes. 24. There is much difficulty, which probably never will be cleared up, about the date of the imprisonment of John, and its reference to the course of our Lord’ s ministry. Between Matthew 4:11 and 12, there seems to be a wide hiatus, in which (see note there) the first chapters of this Gospel should be inserted. But the records from which the three synoptic Gospels have arisen were apparently unconscious of any such interval. Our Evangelist seems here to refer to such records, and to insert this remark, that it might not be imagined, as it would be from them, that our Lord’ s public ministry (in the wider sense, see below on ver. 26) began with the imprisonment of the Baptist. 25. The circumstances under which this dispute arose seem to have been these:— John and our Lord were baptizing near to one another. (On the relation of their baptisms, see below on ver. 26.) They were both watched jealously (see ch. 4:1) by the Pharisees. One of these appears to have entered into dispute with the disciples of John about the relative importance of the two baptisms; they perhaps maintaining that their master’ s καθαρισμός preparatory to the Messiah was absolutely necessary for all, and he pointing out to them the apparent inconsistency of this Messiah himself authorizing a baptism in his name, and alleging that if so, their master’ s baptism was rendered superfluous. We are driven to these conjectures, because the text gives us no further insight into the fact than that the circumstances and the answer of John render probable. 26. Compare ch. 1:28. πάντεςἔρχ .] Not, probably, any who had been baptized already by John; but multitudes of persons. The baptism now carried on by the disciples appears to have stood very much in the same position as that of John. It was preparatory to the public ministry of our Lord properly so called, which began in Galilee after the imprisonment of John. It was not accompanied with the gift of the Spirit, see ch. 7:39. As John’ s commission was now on the wane, so our Lord’ s was expanding. The solemn cleansing of the temple was its opening; and now it is proceeding onwards, gathering multitudes around it (see ch. 4:1). 27. The subject of this answer is,— the divinely appointed humiliation and eclipsing of the Baptist himself before the greater majesty of Him who was come after him. Accordingly he begins in this verse by answering to the zeal of his disciples, ‘ that he cannot go beyond the bounds of his heaven-appointed mission.’ “ Non possum mihi arrogare et capere quæ deus non dedit.” (Wetstein.) Some apply the words to Jesus:— εἰδὲλαμπρότερατὰἐκείνου , καὶπάντεςπρὸςαὐτὸνἔρχονται , θαυμάζεινοὐχρή . τοιαῦταγὰρτὰθεῖα . Chrys. But the whole tone of the answer makes the other view more likely. Of course the remark, being general, may in the background have reference to the greater mission of Jesus; but not primarily. The parallelism of ἄνθρωπος here and himself as the subject of εἶπον in the next verse, also supports this view: see Hebrews 5:4. 28. ‘ Not only so, but I have always given the same consistent testimony; that I was only the forerunner of One greater than myself.’ ἐκείνου does not refer to ὁχριστός , in which case it would have been αὐτοῦ (see, however, apparent exceptions to this, ch. 7:45: Acts 3:13; see also Winer, Gr., edn. 6, § 23. 1): but to Jesus, as the subject of ver. 26; and thus is not merely a general testimony with regard to the Messiah, but a personal one to Jesus. 29. Here first, (and here only in our Gospel,) comes from the mouth of the Forerunner, this great symbolical reference which is so common in the other Gospels and in the Epistles. It is remarkable that our Lord brings it forward in His answer to the disciples of John respecting fasting, Matthew 9:15: where see note on the further import of the terms used. The φίλοςτοῦνυμφίου was the regular organ of communication in the preliminaries of marriage, and had the ordering of the marriage feast. It is to this last time, and not to any ceremonial custom connected with the marriage rites, that this verse refers. The friend rejoices at hearing the φωνὴτοῦνυμφίου , (see Jeremiah 7:34; Jeremiah 16:9; Jeremiah 25:10: Revelation 18:23,) in his triumph and joy, at the marriage. He χαρᾷχαίρει (see reff.: 1 Thessalonians 3:9 is not a parallel case as to construction, for ᾗ there is only by attraction) because he hears in the voice of the Bridegroom an assurance of the happy completion of his mission, and on account of the voice itself,— τὴνοὕτωγλυκεῖαν , τὴνοὕτωςἐπέραστον , τὴνοὕτωσωτήριον . ἑστηκὼςκαί belongs merely to the graphic setting forth of the similitude. αὕτη … πεπλήρ .] παραδόντοςἐκείνῳτὴννύμφην , καὶπεπληρωκότος , ὡςεἴρηται , τὴνἐγχειρισθεῖσάνμοιδιακονίαν . Euthym. 30. ἐλαττοῦσθαι ,— ὡςἡλίουἀνατείλαντοςἑωσφόρον . Euthym. See note on Matthew 11:2 ff. 31. Many modern critics, beginning with Bengel and Wetstein, and including Lü cke, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Tholuck, De Wette. and others, maintain that after ver. 30 we have the words, not of the Baptist, but of the Evangelist. Lü cke and De Wette assume that the Evangelist has put his own thoughts into the Baptist’ s mouth, or at least mixed them with his words. The reason of this arbitrary proceeding is, that the sentiments of the following verses seem to them not to be congruous with the time and position of the Baptist. But some of them confess (e.g. Lü cke, De Wette) that this very position of the Baptist is to them yet unexplained, and are disposed to question the applicability to their idea of it of very much which is undoubtedly recorded to have been said by him. So that we cannot allow such a view much critical weight, unless it can be first clearly shewn, what were the Baptist’ s convictions concerning the Person and Office of our Lord. That the diction and sentiments of the following verses are so entirely in the style of our Evangelist. But first, I by no means grant this, in the sense which is here meant. It will be seen by the reff. that the Evangelist does not so frequently repeat himself as in most other passages of equal length. And even were this so, the remark made above on vv. 16-21, would apply here also; that the Evangelist’ s peculiar style of theological expression was formed on some model; and on what more likely than in the first place the discourses of his Divine Master, and then such sententious and striking testimonies as the present? But there is a weightier reason than these for opposing the above view, and that arises from what modern criticism has been so much given to overlook,— the inner coherence of the discourse itself; in which John explains to his disciples the reason why He must increase; whereas his own dignity was to be eclipsed before Him. This will be seen below as we proceed. And there is nothing inconsistent with what the Lord himself says of the Baptist in these verses. He (the Baptist) ever speaks not as a disciple of Jesus, not as within the Kingdom,— but as knowing the blessedness of those who should be within it; as standing by, and hearing the Bridegroom’ s voice. Nor again is there any thing inconsistent with the frame of mind which prompted the question sent by John to our Lord afterwards in the onward waning of his days in prison: see note on Matthew 11:2. ὁἄνωθ . ἐρχ .] This gives us the reason why He must increase: His power and His words are not from below, temporary, limited; but are divine and inexhaustible; and, ver. 32, His witness is not, like John’ s, only of what he has been forewarned to expect, but of that which he has seen and heard. But οὐδείς ,— i.e. in reference to the κόσμος into which He is come, the σκοτία in which His light shines,— no one comparatively,— receives His testimony. The state of men’ s minds at Jerusalem with regard to Jesus must ere this have been well known to the Baptist. Notice in ver. 31 the collocation of the words as regards emphasis: ὁὢνἐκτῆςγῆςἐκτῆςγῆςἐστιν , κ . ἐκτῆςγῆςλαλεῖ . 33, 34. This exception shews the correctness of the sense just assigned to οὐδείς . ὁλαβὼναὐτοῦτὴνμαρτυρίανκαὶπιστεύωναὐτῷ , ἐβεβαίωσεν , ἔδειξεν , ὅτιὁθεὸςἀληθήςἐστινὁἀποστείλαςαὐτόν , οὕτινόςἐστιτὰῥήματαἃλαλεῖ · ὁδὲμὴλαβὼναὐτὴνκαὶἀπιστῶναὐτῷ , τοὐναντίονποιεῖ , καὶοὐδὲνἕτερονἢπροδήλωςθεομαχεῖ . Euthym. The middle σφραγίζομαι is more usual in this signification. See instances in Wetstein. ἀληθής , not as Wetstein, “ Deum veracem esse, et quæ per Prophetas promiserat, præ stitisse;” this does not suit the context, and besides would require πιστός , not ἀληθής (see 1 John 1:9): but, as above from Euthym., true. οὐγὰρἐκμ .… ] Seeing that the contrast is between the unlimited gift of the Spirit to Him that comes from above, and the limited participation of Him by those who are of the earth; we must not understand the assertion generally, but supply αὐτῷ , as has usually been done, after δίδωσιν . “ Spiritus sanctus non habitavit super Prophetas, nisi mensura quadam; quidam enim librum unum, quidam duos vaticiniorum ediderunt.” (Vajikra Rabba, in Wetstein.) This unmeasured pouring of the Spirit on Him accounts for his speaking the words of God. 35. This, again, is the ground why the Father gives not the Spirit by measure (to Him): see Matthew 11:27-29, with which this verse forms a remarkable point of connexion, shewing that what is commonly known as John’ s form of expression was not confined to him, but originated higher, having its traces in the synoptic narrative, which is confessedly, in its main features, independent of him. 36. Compare ch. 1:12, 13; ver. 15. ἀπειθῶν may mean disbelieving, see reff. Unbelief implies disobedience. μένει ] It was on him, see ver. 18, in his state of darkness and nature,— and can only be removed by faith in the Son of God, which he has not. Chap. 4:1-54. Manifestation of Himself as the Son of God in Samaria and Galilee. 1-42. On his way back to Galilee through Samaria, he discourses with a Samaritan woman. Confession of his Messiahship by the Samaritans. 1. An inference may be drawn from this, that our Lord knew the anger of the Pharisees to be more directed against Him thau against the Baptist,— probably on account of what had passed in Jerusalem. ὃτιἸησοῦς , not ὅτιαὐτὸς .… because the report which the Pharisees had heard is given verbatim: the ὅτι is ‘ recitantis’ merely. 2. Probably for the same reason that Paul did not baptize usually (1 Corinthians 1:14-16); viz. because His office was to preach and teach;— and the disciples as yet had no office of this kind. To assume a further reason, e.g. that there might not be ground for those whom the Lord himself had baptized to boast of it, is arbitrary and unnecessary. “ Johannes, minister, sua manu baptizavit; discipuli ejus, ut videtur, neminem. At Christus baptizat Spiritu Sancto.” Bengel. 4. If He was already on the borders of Samaria, not far from Æ non (see note on ch. 3:23), the direct way was through Samaria. Indeed without this assumption, we know that the Galilæ ans ordinarily took this way (Jos. Antt. xx. 6. 1, beginning). But there was probably design also in the journey. It could not have been mere speed (πάντωςἔδειτοὺςταχὺβουλομένουςἀπελθεῖνδι ʼ ἐκείνηςπορεύεσθαι , Jos. Vit. 52),— since He made two days’ stay on the way. 5. Sychar is better known by the O.T. name of Sychem , or τὰΣίκιμα (Josephus, Euseb., &c.), or ἡΣικίμα (LXX, 3 Kings 12:25). It was a very old town on the range of Mt. Ephraim, in a narrow valley between Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim. Judges 9:7. The name Sychar has been variously derived: from ש ׁ ֶ ק ֶ ר , a lie, or ש ׁ ִ כ ּ ֹ ר , drunken (Isaiah 28:1), by some (Reland, Lightfoot), who believe it to have originally been an opprobrious name given by the Jews, but by this time to have lost its signification, and become the usual appelation: by others from Συχέμ , by mere corruption of the terminating liquid μ into ρ , Olsh. Very near it was afterwards built Flavia Neapolis (Συχέμ , νῦνἔρημος , δείκνυταιδὲὁτόποςἐνπροαστείοιςνέαςπόλεως , Euseb. Onomasticon, in Winer, sub voce). There is a long and interesting history of Sychem and the Samaritan worship on Gerizim, and the Christian church in the neighbourhood, in Robinson’ s Palestine, iii. 113-136. [See also Dr. Thomson, The Land and the Book, p. 472 ff. He thinks that Sychar and Shechem are not the same, because at Shechem (Nablus) there are delicious fountains of water, which the woman would hardly have left to draw from a deep well two miles off.] τοῦχωρ . ὃἔδωκ … ] This is traditional: it finds however support from Genesis 33:19, where we find Jacob buying a field near Shechem, and Joshua 24:32, where, on the mention of Joseph’ s bones being laid there, it is said that it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph. This form of the tradition is supposed to have arisen from the translation by the LXX of Gen 48:22, ἐγὼδὲδίδωμίσοιΣίκιμαἐξαίρετονὑπὲρτοὺςἀδελφούςσου : and of Jos 24:32, ἐντῇμερίδιτοῦἀγροῦοὗἐκτήσατοἸακὼβπαρὰτῶνἈμοῤῥαίωντῶνκατοικούντωνἐνΣικίμοις … καὶἔδωκεναὐτὴνἸωσὴφἐνμερίδι , where they apparently read or mistook ו ַ י ִ ה ְ י ו ּ for ו ַ י ּ ֵ ה ֲ ב ֵ ה ו ּ (3 sing. fut. Kal. w. suffix of י ָ ה ַ ב , a verb which only occurs in the imperative mood, unless it be in the very doubtful place of Hos 4:18). Our Lord does not allude to it in the conversation, though the woman does. 6. Robinson (iii. 112) can only solve the difficulty of the present well standing in a spot watered by so many natural fountains, by supposing that it may have been dug, according to the practice of the patriarchs, by Jacob, in connexion with the plot of ground which he brought, to have an independent supply of water. οὕτως — see reff.— refers to κεκοπιακὼςἐκτ . ὁδ ., and may be rendered accordingly. There is no authority for the meaning ἁπλῶςὡςἔτυχε , ‘ just as he was,’ or ‘ just as it happened,’ i.e. on the bare stone. ὥρα … ἕκτη , mid-day. Townson supposed the sixth hour, according to John, to mean six in the evening, “ after the way of reckoning in Asia Minor;” — but, as Lü cke observes (i. 580), this way of reckoning in Asia Minor is a pure invention of Townson’ s. A decisive answer however to such a supposition here, or any where else in our Evangelist, is, that he would naturally have specified whether it was 6 a.m. or p.m. The unusualness of a woman coming to draw water at mid-day is no argument against its possibility; indeed the very fact of her being alone seems to shew that it was not the common time. This purely arbitrary hypothesis of St. John’ s way of reckoning the hours has been recently again upheld by Bp. Wordsworth: but it has only harmonistic grounds to rest on. The passage which he urges as supporting it, Martyr. Polycarp, c. 21, p. 1044, ed. Migne, does not in reality give it the least countenance. The ὥραὀγδόη there mentioned is much more probably according to the usual Roman computation. 7. ἐκτ . Σ ., i.e. a Samaritan— so γυνὴΧαναν . ἀπὸτῶνὁρίωνἐκείνων , Matthew 15:22. 8. The disciples had probably taken with them the baggage, among which would be the ἄντλημα ,— see ver. 11. The Rabbis say that a Jew might not eat the bread or drink the wine of a Samaritan: but that appears from this verse to be exaggerated. 9. Ἰουδαῖοςὤν ] She knew this perhaps by his dress, more probably by his dialect. There seems to be a sort of playful triumph in the woman’ s question, q. d. ‘ even a Jew, when weary and athirst, can humble himself to ask drink of a Samaritan woman.’ οὐγὰρσυγχρ … are the words of the Evangelist to explain her question. συγχράομαι is properly spoken of trade,— but here is in a wider signification. Wetstein quotes from Polybius, παρὰΤαραντίνωνκαὶΛοκρῶνσυγχρησάμενοιπεντηκοντόρουςκαὶτριήρεις . Notice, 1) that this explanatory clause is omitted by 1, and certainly may have been a gloss originally: but the authority is not enough to justify us in bracketing it: 2) that Ἰουδ . and Σαμ . are both anarthrous— ‘ Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.’ The fact is abundantly illustrated in the Rabbinical writings: see Schö ttg. h. l. The question of the woman shews a lively naï ve disposition, which is further drawn out and exemplified by Him who knew what is in man, in the following dialogue. 10. The important words the gift of God have been misunderstood by many Commentators. Some suppose them to mean ‘ our Lord himself,’ and to be in apposition with the next clause, καὶτίςἐστινκ .τ .λ . Others, ‘ this opportunity of speaking with me.’ Doubtless both these meanings are involved,— especially the former: but neither of them is the primary one, as addressed to the woman. The water is, in this first part of the discourse, the subject, and serves as a point of connexion, whereby the woman’ s thoughts may be elevated, and her desire aroused. The process of the discourse in this particular is similar to that in Acts 14:17. From recognizing this water as the gift of God, in its limitation, ver. 13, and its parabolic import, ver. 14, her view is directed to Him who was speaking with her, and the Gift which He should bestow,— the gift of the Holy Spirit: see ch. 7:37-39. τίςἐστιν ] These pregnant words form the second step in our Lord’ s declaration. He who speaks with thee is no ordinary Ἰουδαῖος , nor any ordinary man, but One who can give thee the gift of God; One sent from God, and God Himself. All this lies in the words, which however only serve to arouse in the woman’ s mind the question of ver. 12 (see below). ὕδωρζῶν ] Designedly used in a double sense by our Lord, that the woman may lay hold of the material meaning, and by it be awakened to the higher one (see reff.). The words bring with them, and in our Lord’ s inner meaning involved, the performance of all such prophetic promises as Ezekiel 36:25: Zechariah 13:1 (see also Jeremiah 2:13); but, as regarded the woman, the ordinary sense was that intended for her to fasten on, which she does accordingly. On the question, how this living water could be now given, before Jesus was glorified, see on ch. 7:38, 39. 11, 12. Though κύριε is not to be pressed as emphatic, it is not without import; it surely betokens a different regard of the stranger than σὺἸουδαῖοςὤν did;— κύριοναὐτὸνπροσηγόρευσε , νομίσασαμέγανεἶναίτινα . The course of her thoughts appears to be:— ‘ Thou canst not mean living water (ἀναβλύζονκαὶἁλλόμενον , Euthym.), from this well, because thou hast no vessel to draw with, and it is deep; whence then hast thou (knowest thou of, drawest thou) the living water of which thou speakest? Our father Jacob was contented with this, used it, and bequeathed it to us: if thou hast better water, and canst give it (notice the ἔδωκεν in both verses), thou must be greater than Jacob.’ There is something also of Samaritan nationality speaking here. Claiming Jacob as her father (ὅτανμὲνεὖπράττονταςβλέπωσιτοὺςἸουδαίους , συγγενεῖςἀποκαλοῦσιν , ὡςἐξἸωσήπουφύντες , ὅτανδὲπταίσανταςἴδωσιν , οὐδαμόθεναὑτοῖςπροσήκεινλέγουσιν , Jos. Antt. ix. 14. 3), she expresses by this question an appropriation of descent from him, such as almost to exclude, or at all events set at a greater distance, the Jews, to one of whom she believed herself to be speaking. 13, 14. Our Lord, without noticing this, by His answer leaves it to be implied, that, assuming what she has stated, He is greater than Jacob: for his (Jacob’ s) gift was of water which cannot satisfy: but the water which He should give has living power, and becomes an eternal fountain within. This however, ‘ that He was greater than Jacob,’ lies only in the background: the water is the subject, as before. The words apply to every similar quenching of desire by earthly means: the desire springs up again;— is not satisfied, but only postponed. The manna was as insufficient to satisfy hunger,— as this water, thirst, see ch. 6:49, 58: it is only the ὕδωρζῶν , and the ἄρτοςτῆςζωῆς , which can satisfy. The ὁπίνων sets forth the recurrence, the interrupted seasons, of the drinking of earthly water;— the ὃςδ ʼ ἂνπίῃ — the once having tasted, and ever continuing in the increasing power, and living forth-flowing, of that life-long draught. οὐμὴδιψήσει , shall never have to go away and be exhausted, and come again to be filled;— but shall have the spring at home, in his own breast,— so that he can “ draw water with joy out of the wells of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3) at his pleasure. “ Ubi sitis recurrit, hominis, non aquæ , defectus est.” Bengel. γενήσεταιπηγή ] All earthly supplies have access only into those lower parts of our being where the desires work themselves out— are but local applications; but the heavenly gift of spiritual life which Jesus gives to those who believe on Him, enters into the very secret and highest place of their personal life, the source whence the desires spring out;— and, its nature being living and spiritual, it does not merely supply, but it lives and waxes onward, unto everlasting life, in duration, and also as producing and sustaining it. It should not be overlooked, that this discourse had, besides its manifold and wonderful meaning for us all, an especial moral one as applied to the woman,— who, by successive draughts at the ‘ broken cistern’ of carnal lust, had been vainly seeking solace:— and this consideration serves to bind on the following verses (ver. 16 ff.) to the preceding, by another link besides those noticed below. 15. This request seems to be made still under a misunderstanding, but not so great an one as at first sight appears. She apprehends this water as something not requiring an ἄντλημα to draw it;— as something whose power shall never fail;— which shall quench thirst for ever;— and half in banter, half in earnest, wishing perhaps besides to see whether the gift would after all be conferred, and how,— she mingles in with the τοῦτοτὸὕδωρ ,— implying some view of its distinct nature,— her ‘ not coming hither to draw,’ — her willing avoidance of the toil of her noonday journey to the well. We must be able to enter into the complication of her character, and the impressions made on her by the strange things which she has heard, fully to appreciate the spirit of this answer. 16. The connexion of this verse with the foregoing has been much disputed; and the strangest and most unworthy views have been taken of it. Some (e.g. Grotius) have strangely referred it to the supposed indecorum of the longer continuance of the colloquy with the woman alone; some more strangely still ( in Catena, Lü cke, p. 588) to the incapacity of the female mind to apprehend the matters of which He was to speak. Both these need surely no refutation. The band of women from Galilee, “ last at the cross, and earliest at the tomb,” are a sufficient answer to them. Those approach nearer the truth, who believe the command to have been given to awaken her conscience (Maldonatus and .); or to shew her the divine knowledge which the Lord had of her heart (Meyer). But I am persuaded that the right account is found, in viewing this command, as the first step of granting her request, δόςμοιτοῦτοτὸὕδωρ . The first work of the Spirit of God, and of Him who here spoke in the fulness of that Spirit, is, to convince of sin. The ‘ give me this water’ was not so simple a matter as she supposed. The heart must first be laid bare before the Wisdom of God: the secret sins set in the light of His countenance; and this our Lord here does. The command itself is of course given in the fulness of knowledge of her sinful condition of life. In every conversation which our Lord held with men, while He connects usually one remark with another by the common links which bind human thought, we perceive that He knows, and sees through, those with whom He speaks. Euthymius, though not seeing the whole bearing of the command, expresses well this last remark;— ἐγκειμένηςκαὶζητούσηςλαβεῖν , λέγειὝπαγεκ .τ .λ . προσποιούμενοςὅτιχρὴκἀκεῖνονκοινωνῆσαιταύτῃτοῦδώρον . καὶὅτιμὲνοὐκἔχειἄνδρανόμιμονἐγίνωσκεν , ὡςπάνταεἰδώς · ἐβούλετοδὲταύτηνεἰπεῖνὅτιοὐκἔχωἄνδρα , ἵναλοιπόν , προφάσεωςδραξάμενος , προφητεύσῃτὰκατ ʼ αὐτὴνκαὶδιορθώσηταιταύτην . θέλειγὰρτῶνπροῤῥήσεωνκαὶτῶνθαυμάτωντὰςἀφορμὰςπαρ ʼ αὐτῶνλαμβάνειντῶνπροσιόντων , ὥστεκαὶτὴντοῦκενοδοξεῖνὑπόνοιανδιαφεύγειν , καὶοἰκειοῦσθαιμᾶλλοναὐτούς . 17. This answer is not for a moment to be treated as something unexpected by Him who commanded her (Lü cke). He has before Him her whole life of sin, which she in vain endeavours to cover by the doubtful words of this verse. 18. There was literal truth, but no more, in the woman’ s answer: and the Lord, by His divine knowledge, detects the hidden falsehood of it. Notice it is ἀληθές , not ἀληθῶς : this one word was true: further shewn by the emphatic position of ἄνδρα in our Lord’ s answer. πέντεγὰρἄνδ . ἔσχες ] These five were certainly lawful husbands; they are distinguished from the sixth, who was not;— probably the woman had been separated from some by divorce (the law of which was but loose among the Samaritans),— from some by death,— or perhaps by other reasons more or less discreditable to her character, which had now become degraded into that of an openly licentious woman. The conviction of sin here lies beneath the surface: it is not pressed, nor at the moment does it seem to have worked deeply, for she goes on with the conversation with apparent indifference to it; but our Lord’ s words in vv. 25, 26 would tend to infix it more deeply, and we find at ver. 29, that it had been working during her journey back to the city. 19. In speaking this her conviction, she virtually confesses all the truth. That she should pass to another subject immediately, seems, as Stier remarks (iv. 125, edn. 2), to arise, not from a wish to turn the conversation from a matter so unpleasing to her, but from a real desire to obtain from this Prophet the teaching requisite that she may pray to God acceptably. The idea of her endeavouring to escape from the Lord’ s rebuke, is quite inconsistent with her recognition of Him as a prophet. Rather we may suppose a pause, which makes it evident that He does not mean to proceed further with His laying open of her character. Obs., not σύ (Wordsw.), but προφήτης , is the word of primary emphasis. σύ has the secondary emphasis, by its very expression. 20. ἐντῷὄρειτούτῳ — Mount Gerizim, on which once stood the national temple of the Samaritan race. In Nehemiah 13:28 we read that the grandson of the high-priest Eliashib was banished by Nehemiah because he was son-in-law to Sanballat, the Persian satrap of Samaria. Him Sanballat not only received, but (Jos. Antt. xi. 8. 2-4) made him high-priest of a temple which he built on Mount Gerizim. Josephus makes this appointment sanctioned by Alexander, when at Tyre;— but the chronology is certainly not accurate, for between Sanballat and Alexander is a difference of nearly a century. This temple was destroyed 200 years after by John Hyrcanus (b.c. 129), see Jos. Antt. xiii. 9. 1; but the Samaritans still used it as a place of prayer and sacrifice, and to this day the few Samaritans resident in Nablus (Sychem) call it the holy mountain, and turn their faces to it in prayer. They defended their practice by Deuteronomy 27:4, where our reading and the Hebr. and LXX is Ebal, but that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Gerizim (probably an alteration): also by Genesis 12:6, Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:4; Genesis 33:18, Genesis 33:20: Deuteronomy 11:26 ff. Our fathers most likely mean not the patriarchs, but the ancestors of the then Samaritans. ὁτόπος ] The definite place spoken of Deu 12:5. She pauses, having suggested, rather than asked, a question,— seeming to imply, ‘ Before I can receive this gift of God, it must be decided, where I can acceptably pray for it;’ and she leaves it for Him whom she now recognizes as a prophet, to resolve this doubt. 21. Our Lord first raises her view to a higher point than her question implied, or than indeed she, or any one, without His prophetic announcement, could then have attained. οὔτε .… οὔτε are exclusive: Ye shall worship the Father, but not (only) in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem:— had it been οὐδὲ .… οὐδέ , it would have meant, ‘ Ye shall not worship the Father, either in this mountain, or even in Jerusalem.’ The προσκυνήσετε , though embracing in its wider sense all mankind, may be taken primarily as foretelling the success of the gospel in Samaria, Acts 8:1-25. τῷπατρί , as implying the One God and Father of all. There is also, as Calvin remarks (Stier, iv. 129, edn. 2), a “ tacita oppositio” between ὁπατήρ ,— and ὁπ . ἡμ . Ἰακώβ , ver. 12, οἱπατέρεςἡμῶν , ver. 20. 22. But he will not leave the temple of Zion and the worship appointed by God without His testimony. He decides her question not merely by affirming, but by proving the Jewish worship to be the right one. In the Samaritan worship there was no leading of God to guide them, there were no prophetic voices revealing more and more of His purposes. The neuter ὅ is used to shew the want of personality and distinctness in their idea of God:— the second ὅ , merely as corresponding to it in the other member of the sentence. Or perhaps better, both, as designating merely the abstract object of worship, not the personal God. The ἡμεῖς is remarkable, as being the only instance of our Lord thus speaking. But the nature of the case accounts for it. He never elsewhere is speaking to one so set in opposition to the Jews on a point where Himself and the Jews stood together for God’ s truth. He now speaks as a Jew. The nearest approach to it is in His answer to the Canaanitish woman, Matthew 15:24, Matthew 15:26. ὅτι , because: this is the reason why we know what we worship, because the promises of God are made to us, and we possess them and believe them: see Romans 3:1, Romans 3:2. ἡσωτ . ἐκτ . Ἰ . ἐστ .] It was in this point especially, expectation of the promised salvation by the great Deliverer (see Genesis 49:18), that the Samaritan rejection of the prophetic word had made them so deficient in comparison of the Jews. But not only this;— the Messiah Himself was to spring from among the Jews, and had sprung from among them;— not ἔσται , but ἐστίν , the abstract present, but perhaps with a reference to what was then happening. See Isaiah 2:1-3. 23. The discourse returns to the ground taken in ver. 21, but not so as to make ver. 22 parenthetical only: the spiritual worship now to be spoken of is the carrying out and consequence of the σωτηρία just mentioned, and could not have been brought in without it. καὶνῦνἐστίν ] “ Hoc (versu 21 non additum) nunc additur, ne mulier putet, sibi tantisper sedem in Judæ a quæ rendam esse.” Bengel. οἱἀληθ . προσκ ., as distinguished (1) from hypocrites, who have pretended to worship Him: (2) from all who went before, whose worship was necessarily imperfect. The ἐνπνεύματικαὶἀληθείᾳ is, in its first meaning, opposed to ἐνἔθεικαὶψεύδει ,— and denotes the earnestness of spirit with which the true worshippers shall worship: so Ps. 144:18, ἐγγὺςκύριοςπᾶσιντοῖςἐπικαλουμένοιςαὐτὸνἐνἀληθείᾳ . A deeper meaning is brought out where the ground of this kind of worship is stated, in the next verse. ζητεῖ — not only ‘ requires,’ from His very nature, but seeks,— is seeking. This seeking on the part of the Father naturally brings in the idea, in the woman’ s answer, of the Messiah, by Whom He seeks (Luke 19:10) His true worshippers to gather them out of the world. τοὺςπροσκ .] The construction is, the Father is seeking for such to be οἱπροσκυνοῦντεςαὐτόν ,— ‘ for οἱπροσκ . αὐτ . of this kind.’ τοιούτους may be the predicate— ‘ such the Father seeketh his worshippers to be:’ or it may be the object— ‘ such the Father seeketh as (or to be) his worshippers.’ 24. πνεῦμαὁθεός was the great Truth of Judaism, whereby the Jews were distinguished from the idolatrous people around them. And the Samaritans held even more strongly than the Jews the pure monotheistic view. Traces of this, remarks Lü cke (from Gesenius), i. 599 note, are found in the alterations made by them in their Pentateuch, long before the time of this history. This may perhaps be partly the reason why our Lord, as Bengel remarks, “ Discipulis non tradidit sublimiora,” than to this Samaritan woman. God being pure spirit (perhaps better not ‘ a Spirit,’ since it is His Essence, not His Personality, which is here spoken of), cannot dwell in particular spots or temples (see Acts 7:48; Acts 17:24, Acts 17:25); cannot require, nor be pleased with, earthly material offerings nor ceremonies, as such: on the other hand, is only to be approached in that part of our being, which is spirit,— and even there, inasmuch as He is pure and holy, with no by-ends nor hypocritical regards, but in truth and earnestness. But here comes in the deeper sense alluded to above. How is the spirit of man to be brought into communion with God? “ In templo vis orare; in te ora. Sed prius esto templum Dei.” (Stier, iv. 137, edn. 2.) And how is this to be? Man cannot make himself the temple of God. So that here comes in the gift of God, with which the discourse began,— the gift of the Holy Spirit, which Christ should give to them that believe on Him: thus we have ‘ praying ἐνπνεύματιἁγίῳ ,’ Jude 1:20. So beautifully does the expression ὁπατήρ here bring with it the new birth by the Spirit,— and for us, the readers of the Gospel, does the discourse of ch. 3 reflect light on this. And so wonderfully do these words form the conclusion to the great subject of these first chapters: ‘ God is become one flesh with us, that we might become one Spirit with Him.’ 25. These words again seem uttered under a complicated feeling. From her λαλιά , ver. 29, she certainly had some suspicion (in her own mind, perhaps over and beyond His own assertion of the fact: but see note there) that He who had told her all things, &c., was the Christ; and from her breaking in with this remark after the weighty truth which had been just spoken, it seems as if she thought thus, ‘ How these matters may be, I cannot understand;— they will be all made clear when the Christ shall come.’ The question of ver. 20 had not been answered to her liking or expectation: she therefore puts aside, as it were, what has been said, by a remark on that suspicion which was arising in her mind. It is not certain what expectations the Samaritans had regarding the Messiah. The view here advanced might be well derived from Deuteronomy 18:15;— and the name, and much that belonged to it, might have been borrowed from the Jews originally. ὁλεγόμ . χριστός appear to me to be the words of the woman, not of the Evangelist; for in this latter case he would certainly have used ὁμεσσίας again in ver. 29. See also the difference of expression where he inserts an interpretation, ch. 1:42; 19:13, 17. It is possible that the name ὁχριστός had become common in popular parlance, like many other Greek words and names. ἀναγγέλλω is used especially of enouncing or propounding by divine or superior authority,— see reff. 26. Of the reasons which our Lord had, thus to declare Himself to this Samaritan woman and through her to the inhabitants of Sychem (ver. 42), as the Christ, thus early in his ministry, we surely are not qualified to judge. There is nothing so opposed to true Scripture criticism, as to form a preconceived plan and rationale of the course of our Lord in the flesh, and then to force recorded events into agreement with it. Such a plan will be formed in our own minds from continued study of the Scripture narrative:— but by the arbitrary and procrustean system which I am here condemning, the very facts which are the chief data of such a scheme, are themselves set aside. When De Wette says, “ This early and decided declaration of Jesus is in contradiction with Matthew 8:4, and 16:20,” — he forgets the very different circumstances under which both those injunctions were spoken:— while he is forced to confess that it is in agreement with the whole spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. He who knew what was in man, varied His revelations and injunctions, as the time and place, and individual dispositions required. ἐγώεἰμι ] The verb involves in it the predicate. ὁλαλῶνσοι has a reference to her words, ἀναγγελεῖἡμ . πάντα — I am He, who am now speaking to thee— fulfilling part of this telling all things: see also her confession ver. 29. 27. μετὰγυν ., with a woman. No inference, it is true, can be drawn as to the indefiniteness of the noun, from the omission of the article after a preposition, see Bp. Middleton, ch. 6 § 1: but the position of μετὰγυναικός before the verb throws an emphasis on the words, and makes it probable that the meaning is as above. τίζητεῖς ; κ .τ .λ .] Either— to the woman— What seekest thou? and to the Lord, Why talkest thou with her?— or perhaps both questions to Him: and then we must suppose a mixture of two constructions, of τίζ . παρ ʼ αὐτῆς ;— and τίλαλεῖςμετ ʼ αὐτῆς ;— I rather prefer the former interpretation. 28-30. She does not mention to the men His own announcement of Himself,— but as is most natural under such circumstances, rests the matter on the testimony likely to weigh most with them,— her own. We often, and that unconsciously, put before another not our strongest, but what is likely to be his strongest reason. At the same time she shews how the suspicion expressed in ver. 25 arose in her own mind. 30. ἤρχοντο — were coming,— had not arrived, when what follows happened. 31, 32. The bodily thirst (and hunger probably, from the time of day) which our Lord had felt before, had been and was forgotten in the carrying on of His divine work in the soul of this Samaritan woman. Although ἐγώ and ὑμεῖς are emphatic, the words are not spoken in blame, for none was deserved: but in fulness and earnestness of spirit;— in a feeling analogous to that which comes upon us when called from high and holy employment to the supply of the body or business of this world. βρῶσις , generally distinguished, as ‘ eating,’ from βρῶμα , ‘ food’ (see ref. 1 Cor.),— is here equivalent to it. 33. It is very characteristic of the first part of this Gospel to bring forward instances of unreceptivity of spiritual meaning: compare ver. 11; ch. 2:20; 3:4; 6:42, 52. The disciples probably have the woman in their thoughts. 34. Christ alone could properly say these words. In the believer on Him, they are partially true,— true as far as he has received the Spirit, and entered into the spiritual life;— but in Him they were absolutely and fully true. His whole life was the doing of the Father’ s will. We can ‘ eat and drink, &c. to the glory of God,’ — but in Him the hallowing of the Father’ s name, doing His will, bringing about His Kingdom, was His daily bread, and superseded the thoughts and desires for the other, needful as it was for His humanity. ἵνα is not = ὅτι . The latter would imply what was true (but not here expressed), that the absolute doing, &c. was His food;— as it now stands, it implies that it was His food to carry onward to completion that work: to be ever, step after step, having regard to its being completed. My meat is (not to do, as E. V., but) that I may do, &c. In the τελειώσωαὐτοῦτὸἔργον , the way is prepared for the idea introduced in the next verse. These words give an answer to the questioning in the minds of the disciples, and shew that He had been employed in the Father’ s work during their absence. 35. The sense of these much-controverted words will be best ascertained by narrowly observing the form of the sentence. οὐχὑμεῖςλέγετεὅτι .… surely cannot be the introduction to an observation of what was matter of fact at the time. Had the words been spoken at a time when it wanted four months to the harvest, and had our Lord intended to express this,— is it conceivable that He should have thus introduced the remark? Would not, must not, the question have been a direct one in that case— ‘ are there not four months?’ &c. I know not how to account for this οὐχὑμεῖςλέγετεὅτι .… except that it introduces some common saying which the Jews, or perhaps the people of Galilee only, were in the habit of using. Are not ye accustomed to say, that … ? That we hear of no such proverb elsewhere, is not to the point;— for such unrecorded sayings are among every people. That we do not know whence to date the four months, is again no objection:— there may have been, in the part where the saying was usual (possibly in the land west of the lake of Tiberias, for those addressed were from thence, and the emphatic ὑμεῖς seems to point to some particular locality), some fixed period in the year,— the end of the sowing, or some religious anniversary,— when it was a common saying, that it wanted four months to harvest. And this might have been the first date in the year which had regard to the harvest, and so the best known in connexion with it. If this be so, all that has been built on this saying, as giving a chronological date, must fall to the ground. (Lightfoot, Meyer (1), Wieseler, i. p. 215 ff., and others, maintain, that since the harvest began on the 16th of Nisan, we must reckon four months back from that time for this journey through Samaria, which would bring it to the middle of Chisleu, i.e. the beginning of December.) To get the meaning of the latter part of the verse, we must endeavour to follow, as far as may be, the train of thought which pervades the discourse. He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man: our Lord had now been employed in this His work. But not as in the natural year, so was it to be in the world’ s lifetime. One-third of the year may elapse, or more, before the sown seed springs up; but the sowing by the Son of Man comes late in time, and the harvest should immediately follow. The fields were whitening for it; these Samaritans (not that I believe He pointed to them approaching, as Chrys. and most expositors. but had them in his view in what he said), and the multitudes in Galilee, were all nearly ready. In the discourse as far as ver. 38, He is ὁσπείρων , the disciples (see Act_8) were οἱθερίζοντες :— He was the κεκοπιακώς , they were the εἰςτὸνκόποναὐτοῦεἰσεληλυθότες . The past is used, as descriptive of the office which each held, not of the actual thing done. I cannot also but see an allusion to the words spoken by Joshua (24:13), on this very spot;— ‘ I have given you a land for which ye did not labour’ — ἐφ ʼ ἣνοὐκἐκοπιάσατεἐπ ʼ αὐτῆς . Taking this view, I do not believe there was any allusion to the actual state of the fields at that time. The words ἐπάρατεκ .τ .λ . are of course to be understood literally;— they were to lift up their eyes and look on the lands around them;— and then came the assurance; ‘ they are whitening already towards the harvest.’ And it seems to me that on this view— of the Lord speaking of spiritual things to them, and announcing to them the approach of the spiritual harvest, and none else,— the right understanding of the following verses depends. It is of course possible that it may have been seed-time;— possible also, that the fields may have been actually whitening for the harvest;— but to lay down either of these as certain, and build chronological inferences on it, is quite unwarranted. ἤδη belongs certainly to ver. 35, and refers back to ἔτι . Taken with ver. 36, it would not agree with the truth of the comparison. The harvest was not yet come. The ancient mss. are not trustworthy guides in division and punctuation, which rather form matter of criticism, in which we stand on the same ground as they. 36. The μισθός of the θερίζων is in the χαρά here implied, in having gathered many into eternal life, just as the βρῶσις of the σπείρων was His joy already begun in His heavenly work. See Matthew 20:1-16 and notes. 37. ὁλόγ . ἐστιν [ὁ ] ἀλ ., i.e. has place,— applies = συμβέβηκεν in 2 Peter 2:22. So Winer, Meyer (1), Stier, but contr. Lü cke, De Wette, who question the propriety of the art. and take [ὁ ] ἀληθινός for the predicate, and as = ἀληθής . John’ s usage however is to join ὁλόγ . ὁἀληθινός : see ch. 15:1. We may also take the words, without doing any violence to the art. before ἀληθινός , ‘ Herein is that saying the true one.’ But I still prefer the other way. If we regard the bracketed article as omitted, the sense will of course be, ‘ Herein is that saying true.’ Such however is not St. John’ s usage: see above. 38. Here, as often, our Lord speaks of the office and its work as accomplished, which is but beginning (see Isaiah 46:10). By ἄλλοι here He cannot mean the O.T. Prophets (Grotius, Bengel, Lange), for then His own place would be altogether left out;— and besides, all Scripture analogy is against the idea of the O.T. being the seed of which the N.T. is the fruit:— nor can it be right, as Olshausen maintains, to leave Him out, as being the Lord of the Harvest:— for He is certainly elsewhere, and was by the very nature of the case here, the Sower. The plural is I believe merely inserted as the correspondent word to ὑμεῖς in the explanation, as it was ἄλλος — ἄλλος , in the proverb. (So Lü cke, Tholuck, Stier. De Wette denies their interpretation, but gives none of his own.) 39-42. The truth of the saying of ver. 35 begins to be manifested. These Samaritans were the foundation of the church afterwards built up there. It does not seem that any miracle was wrought there: αὐτοὶἀκηκόαμεν was enough to raise their faith to a point never attained by the Jews, and hardly as yet by the disciples,— that He was the Saviour of the world. Their view seems to have been less clouded by prejudice and narrow-mindedness than that of the Jews; and though the conversion of this people lay not in the plan of the official life of our Lord, or working of His Apostles during it (see Matthew 10:5),— yet we have abundant proof from this history, of His gracious purposes towards them. A trace of this occurrence may be found ch. 8:48, where see note. Compare throughout Acts 8:1-25. (In ver. 42 λαλιά is perhaps not to be distinguished from λόγος before: see ch. 8:43. But it is hardly possible not to see in the word something of allusion to the woman’ s eager and diffuse report to them.) 43-54. The second miracle of Jesus in Galilee. The healing of the Ruler’ s son. 43. τάς should have been expressed in E. V.,— after the two days. We find no mention of the disciples again till ch. 6:3. 44. Much difficulty has been found in the connexion of this verse, but unnecessarily. Some have supposed that the Evangelist means Judæ a by ἡἰδίαπατρίς (, Lü cke (second edn., but see below), Ebrard, &c.),— which cannot be, for there is no allusion to Judæ a at all here, as He came from Samaria, and the verse manifestly alludes to His journey into Galilee:— some, that Capernaum is meant, or Nazareth, and ‘ He went into Galilee,’ as distinguished from one or other of these places (Chrys., Euthym., Cyril, Olsh.);— but neither can this be, for our Evangelist does not so lightly pass over the reasons of the remarks he makes, and there is no allusion to any city in Galilee, but to His going into Galilee in general. Some again suppose it to be a reason why He did not go into Galilee before, but remained in Judæ a and Samaria (Theophyl., Meyer (1), and somewhat similarly Neander, L. J. 385, and Jacobi); this however would be equally alien from the simplicity of John’ s style, and not in accordance with the fact of almost all His teaching and working being in Galilee. Nor is γάρ to be rendered ‘ although’ (Kuinoel)— a sense (Lü cke, 1. 613) which it never has. One admissible view is (Tholuck, Lü cke (third edn.), De Wette), that this verse refers to the next following, and indeed to the whole narrative which it introduces. It stands as a preliminary explanation of the ‘ Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe;’ and as indicating the contrast between the Samaritans, who believed on Him for His word,— and His own countrymen, who only received Him because they had seen the miracles which He did at Jerusalem. Such use of γάρ is not unexampled (see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. p. 467; Lü cke, 467; Thol.; De Wette; and Matthiæ , Gr. Gr. § 615). In Herod. 1. 124 we have ὦπαῖΚαμβύσεω , σὲγὰρθεοὶἐπορέωσι · οὐγὰρἄνκοτεἐςτοσοῦτοντύχηςἀπίκεν · σὺνῦνἈστυάγεατὸνσεωυτοῦφονέατίσαι . Soph. Antig. 393: ἀλλ ʼ , ἡγὰρἐκτὸςκαὶπαρ ʼ ἐλπίδαςχαρὰ | ἔοικενἄλλῃμῆκοςοὐδὲνἡδονῇ , | ἥκωκ .τ .λ . And thus the οὖν in the next verse will be a particle connecting it with this preliminary reason given. But ἐμαρτύρησεν is not to be taken as a pluperfect. A simpler view still is this: the reason (ver. 1) why He left Judæ a for Galilee was, because of the publicity which was gathering round Himself and his ministry. He betakes Himself to Galilee therefore, to avoid fame, testifying that His own country (Galilee) was that where, as a prophet, He was least likely to be honoured. 45. They received Him, but in accordance with the proverbial saying just recorded;— not for any honour in which they themselves held Him, or value which they had for His teaching; but on account of His fame in Jerusalem, the metropolis,— which set them the fashion in their estimate of men and things. καὶαὐτοὶγάρ , inserted for those readers who might not be aware of the practice of the Galilæ ans to frequent the feasts at Jerusalem. 46. οὖν , perhaps (see above) because of the receptivity of Him from signs and wonders merely,— not as a Prophet from His teaching. But it is hardly safe in this Gospel to mark the inference in οὖν so strongly: it is St. John’ s habitual particle of sequence, even where that sequence is not strictly logical, only temporal, and thus in God’ s purposes, no doubt, consequential. βασιλικός ] ἢἐκγένουςβασιλικοῦ , ἢὡςἀξίωμάτικεκτημένοςἀφ ʼ οὗπερἐκαλεῖτοβασιλικός (Euthym., Chrys.), ἢὡςὑπηρέτηςβασιλικός (Euthym.). Origen thinks he may have been one of the household of Cæ sar, having some business in Judæ a at that time. But the usage of Josephus is perhaps our surest guide. He uses βασ . to distinguish the soldiers, or courtiers, or officers of the kings (Herods or others), from those of Rome,— but never to designate the royal family: see B. J. vii. 5. 2: Antt. xv. 8, 4. So that this man was probably an officer of Herod Antipas. He may have been Chuza, Herod’ s steward, Luke 8:3: but this is pure conjecture. The man seems to have been a Jew: see below. 47, 48. This miracle is a notable instance of our Lord ‘ not quenching the smoking flax:’ just as His reproof of the Samaritan woman was of His ‘ not breaking the bruised reed.’ The little spark of faith in the breast of this nobleman is by Him lit up into a clear and enduring flame for the light and comfort of himself and his house. καταβῇ ] See on ch. 2:12. The charge brought against them, ἐὰνμὴκ .τ .λ ., does not imply, as some (Raphel and Storr) think, that they would not believe signs and wonders heard of, but required to see them — for in this case the expression would certainly have been fuller, ἴδητετοῖςὀφθαλμοῖς , or something similar;— and it would not accord with our Lord’ s known low estimate of all mere miracle-faith, to find Him making so weighty a difference between faith from miracles seen and faith from miracles heard. The words imply the contrast between the Samaritans, who believed because of His word, and the Jews (the plural reckoning the βασιλικός among them), who would not believe but through signs and prodigies: see 1 Corinthians 1:22. And observe also that it is not implied that even when they had seen signs and wonders, they would believe:— the required these as a condition of their faith, but even these were rejected by them: see ch. 12:37. But even with such inadequate conception and conditions of faith, our Lord receives the nobleman, and works the sign rather than dismiss him. It was otherwise in Matthew 16:1 ff. 49. Here is the same weakness of faith,— but our Lord’ s last words have made visible impression. It is like the Syrophœ nician woman’ s rejoinder,— ‘ Yea, Lord; but … ,’ only the faith is of a far less noble kind than hers. He seems to believe it necessary that Jesus should be on the spot;— not that there was any thing strange or blameable in this, for Martha and Mary did the same, ch. 11:21, 32:— and to think that it would be too late when his child had expired;— not imagining that He to whom he spoke could raise the dead. 50. The bringing out and strengthening of the man’ s faith by these words was almost as great a spiritual miracle, as the material one which they indicated. We may observe the difference between our Lord’ s dealing here and in the case of the centurion . There, when from humility the man requests Him to speak the word only, He offers to go to his house: here, when pressed to go down, He speaks the word only. Thus (as Trench observes, after Chrysostom) the weak faith of the nobleman is strengthened, while the humility of the centurion is honoured. 51. He appears [see below] to have gone leisurely away,— for the hour (1 p.m.) was early enough to reach Capernaum the same evening (twenty-five miles): in confidence that an amendment was taking place, which he at present understood to be only a gradual one. 52, 53. κομψῶςἔχειν in this sense is found in Arrian. Dissert. Epictet. iii. 10, cited by most of the Commentators. ὅτανὁἰατρὸςεἰσέρχηται , μὴφοβεῖσθαιτίεἴπῃ · μηδ ʼ ἂνεἴπη , κομψῶςἔχεις , ὑπερχαίρειν … μηδ ʼ ἂνεἴπῃ , κακῶςἔχεις , ἀθυμεῖν .… ἀφῆκεναὐτ . ὁπυρ .] This was probably more than he expected to hear; and the coincidence of so sudden a recovery with the time at which Jesus had spoken the words to him , raises his faith at length into a full belief of the Power and Goodness and the Messiahship of Him, who had by a word commanded the disease, and it had obeyed. The ἐπίστευσεν , absolutely, implies that in the fullest sense he and all his became disciples of Jesus. It is very different from ἐπίστευσεντῷλόγῳὃνεἶπ . Ἰησ . in ver. 50— as believing on Him must be always different from believing on any thing else in the world, be it even His own word or His own ordinances. Here the advocates of the (imaginary— see above on ver. 6) Asiatic division of the hours by St. John, suppose him to have put that division into the mouth of Jews in Galilee. But that division would in reality not help the narrative here at all, as they maintain. The βασιλικός probably set out, as indeed the narrative implies, immediately on hearing our Lord’ s assurance, and spent the night on the way. Indeed, curiously enough, Bp. Wordsw. makes him do this, and yet maintains the seventh hour to have been 7 p.m. 54. The meaning of the Evangelist clearly is, that this was the second Galilæ an miracle (see ch. 3:2, and ver. 45). But (1) how is that expressed in the words? The σημεῖα which He did at Jerusalem in the feast being omitted, the πάλινδεύτερονσ . naturally carries the thoughts back to a former one related; and the clause added (ἐλθὼνκ .τ .λ .) shews, not that a miracle prior to this, during this return visit, has been passed over,— but that as the scene of this second was in Galilee, so that former one, to which δεύτ . refers, must be sought in Galilee also. And then (2) why should this so particularly be stated? Certainly, it seems to me, on account of the part which this miracle bore in the calling out and assuring of faith by the manifestation of His glory, as that first one had done before. By that (ch. 2:11), His disciples had been convinced: by this, one (himself a type of the weak and unworthy in faith) outside the circle of His own. By both, half-belief was strengthened into faith in Him: but in each case it is of a different kind. It is an interesting question, whether or not this miracle be the same as the healing of the centurion’ s servant (or son, Matt.?) in Matthew 8:5: Luke 7:1. Irenæ us appears to hold the two narratives to be the same history (appears only; for his words are, “ Filium centurionis absens verbo curavit dicens Vade, filius tuus vivit,” Hæ r. ii. 22. 3, p. 147: which remark may be simply explained by his having cited from memory, and thus either made this βασιλικός a centurion,— or, which is more probable, having understood the παῖς in Mat_8 as a son, and made our Lord there speak very similar words to those really uttered by Him, but which are in reality found here): so Eusebius also in his canons. Chrysostom notices, but opposes the view:— and it has never in modern times gained many advocates, being only held by Semler, Seiffarth, and the interpreters of the Straussian school. Indeed, the internal evidence is all against it: not only (Chrys.) ἀπὸτοῦἀξιώματος , ἀλλὰκαὶἀπὸτῆςπίστεως , does the man in one case differ from the man in the other. The inner kernel of the history is, in our case here,— the elevation of a weak and mere wonder-seeking faith into a deep conviction of the personal power and love of our Lord; in the other, the commendation of a noble confession of our Lord’ s divine power, indicating great strength and grasp of faith, and inducing the greatest personal humility. And the external point brought out in the commendation, οὐδὲἐντῷἸσραήλ , is not only different from, but stands in absolute contrast with, the depreciating charge here, ἐὰνμὴσημεῖακαὶτέραταἴδητε , οὐμὴπιστεύσητε . Olshausen (whose commentary on John is far less elaborate than on the other Gospels, which may account for my referring less often to it) well remarks, that this narrative may be regarded as a sequel to the foregoing one. Chap. 5-12. Second great division of the Gospel. Jesus in conflict with the Jews. 5, 6. Jesus the life. Beginning of the conflict. Chap. 5:1-47. Healing of a cripple at the pool of Bethesda, during a feast; and the discourse of Jesus occasioned by the persecution of the Jews arising thereupon. 1. μετὰταῦτα ] Lü cke remark that when John wishes to indicate immediate succession, he uses μετὰτοῦτο , ch. 2:12; 11:7, 11; 19:28: when mediate, after an interval, μετὰταῦτα , ch. 3:22; 5:14; 6:1; 7:1; 19:38. So that apart from other considerations which would lead us to the same conclusion, we may infer that some interval has elapsed since the last verse of ch. 4. ἑορτὴτ . Ἰουδ .] Few points have been more controverted, than the question, what this feast was. I will give the principal views, and then state my own conclusion. (I have abridged the following statement principally from Lü cke’ s note, ii. 1-15.) (1) Irenæ us understands it (Hæ r. ii. 22. 3, p. 147) to be the second Passover of our Lord’ s ministry. Origen (whose commentary on this chapter is lost) mentions this view (tom. xiii. 39, vol. iv. p. 250), but apparently does not approve it. (ms. reads ηνεορτητωναζυμωνκ .τ .λ .) This is the view of Luther, Calovius, Scaliger, Grotius, Lightfoot, Lampe, Kuinoel. (2) and Chrysostom think it to be the Pentecost; similarly and Theophyl. This opinion prevailed in the Greek Church; and has been defended by Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, &c., and more recently by Bengel in his Harmony. (3) Kepler first suggested the idea that it might be the feast of Purim, (Esther 9:21, Esther 9:26,) almost immediately preceding the Passover (the 14th and 15th of Adar). This was adopted by Petavius, and has been the general view of the modern chronologists. So Lamy (Apparat. Chronol.), Hug, Lü cke (1st edn.), Olshausen, Meyer, Wieseler, Stier, Neander, Winer. (4) The feast of Tabernacles has been suggested by Cocceius, and is supported by one ms. (131, which adds ἡσκηνοπηγία .) (5) Kepler and Petavius thought it also possible that the feast of Dedication (see ch. 10:22) might be meant. So that almost every Jewish feast finds some supporters. I believe with Lü cke (3rd edn.), De Wette, and Tholuck, that we cannot with any probability gather what feast it was. Seeing as I do no distinct datum given in ch. 4:35, nor again in ch. 6:1, and finding nothing in this chapter to determine the nature of this feast, I cannot attach any weight to most of the elaborate chronological arguments which have been raised on the subject. It can hardly have been a Passover, both on account of the omission of the article before ἑορτή (see ch. 6:4), and because if so, we should have an interval of a whole year between this chapter and the next, which is not probable. Nor can it have been the Dedication, in the winter; for then the multitude of sick would have hardly been waiting in the porches of Bethesda. The feast of Purim would nearest agree with the subsequent events; and it seems as if our Lord did not go up to Jerusalem at the Passover next following (ch. 6:4; 7:1), so that no difficulty would be created by the proximity of the two feasts, unless, with De Wette, we believe that the interval was too little for what is related ch. 6:1-3 to have happened. But it may be doubted, (1) whether it was a general practice to go up to Jerusalem at the Purim: (2) whether our Lord would be likely to observe it, even if it was. No reason need be given why John does not name the feast; it is quite in accordance with his practice of mentioning nothing that does not concern his subject-matter. Thus the Passover is mentioned ch. 2:13, because of the buying and selling in the temple; again, ch. 6:4, to account for the great multitude, and as eminently suiting (see notes) the subject of His discourse there; the feast of Tabernacles, ch. 7:2, because of the practice alluded to by our Lord in ver. 37; that of the Dedication, ch. 10:22, to account for His being in Solomon’ s porch because it was winter; but in this chapter, where there is nothing alluding to the time or nature of the feast, it is not specified. Ἰησοῦς — and probably His disciples: for the same expression is used ch. 2:13, whereas we find, ch. 3:22, that His disciples were with Him: compare also ch. 7:10 and ch. 9:2. 2. ἔστιν has been thought by Bengel and others to import that John wrote his Gospel before the destruction of Jerusalem. But this must not be pressed. He might have spoken in the present without meaning to be literally accurate at the moment when he was writing (see Prolegg. to John, § iv. 6). ἐπὶτῇπροβ ., probably near the sheep-gate,— mentioned by Nehemiah, see reff. The situation of this gate is unknown;— it is traditionally supposed to be the same with that now called St. Stephen’ s gate; but inaccurately, for no wall existed in that quarter till the time of Agrippa (Robinson, i. 472). Eusebius, Jerome, and the Itinerarium Hieros. speak of a προβατικὴκολυμβήθρα , so also probatica piscina, Vulg. The reading λεγομένη would be more usual; perhaps ἐπιλ . implies that it had another name. Βηθεσδά = . ב ּ ֵ י ת ח ֶ ס ְ ד ּ ָ א , the house (place) of mercy, or of grace. Its present situation is very uncertain. Robinson established by personal inspection the fact of the subterranean connexion of the pool of Siloam (see ch. 9:7, note; and the supplementary note at the end of this volume) and that called the Fountain of the Virgin (i. 501 ff.); and has made it probable that the Fountain under the grand Mosk is also connected with them (i. 509 ff.); in fact that all these are but one and the same spring. (See also some interesting particulars respecting an attempt made subsequently to prove this connexion, and mention of a fourth fountain with the same peculiar taste as the water of Siloam, in Williams’ s Holy City, pp. 381 ff.) Now this spring, as he himself witnessed, (i. 506,) is an intermittent one, as indeed had been reported before by Jerome (on Isaiah 8:6), Prudentius (in Trench, Mir. p. 247, edn. 2), William of Tyre, and others. There might have been then, it is obvious, some artificially constructed basin in connexion with this spring, the site and memory of which have perished, which would present the phæ nomenon here described: see below. The spot now traditionally known as Bethesda is a part of the fosse round the fort or tower Antonia, an immense reservoir or trench, seventy-five feet deep. But, as Robinson observes (i. 489), there is not the slightest evidence that can identify it with the Bethesda of the N.T. This pool is not mentioned by Josephus. πέντεστοὰςἔχ .] Probably these were for the shelter of the sick persons, and were arches or porticos, opening upon and surrounding the reservoir. στοάἐστινἡπαρ ʼ ἡμῖνλεγομένηκαμάρα , ἢκαὶὁθόλος . Euthym. 3. ξηρῶν , those who were afflicted with the loss of vital power in any of their limbs by stiffness or paralysis. Of this kind was the man on whom the miracle was wrought. [ἐκδεχ .… κίησιν , and ver. 4. The spuriousness of this controverted passage seems to me more clear than when I prepared my Second Edition. The very reasons which Stier and De Wette allege in its favour, and which then weighed with me, will on more consideration be found to range themselves on the other side. Let us conceive of the matter thus. The facts, of the assemblage of sick persons round the pool, and of the answer of the sick man in ver. 7, were recorded in the sacred text as we now find them, and nothing else. In the background, and explanatory of both, was the popular belief of the Jews, not alleged by the Evangelist. In very early times, this deficiency was supplied by the insertion of the spurious passage. I say, in very early times: for Tertullian refers to it in a way which leaves no doubt that he read it entire. “ Piscinam Bethsaidam (cf. digest on ver. 2) angelus interveniens commovebat: observabant qui valetudinem querebantur. Nam si quis præ venerat descendere illuc, queri post lavacrum desinebat.” De Bapt. c. 5, vol. i. p. 1205. So that the fact of so many different kinds of sick persons being mentioned here (Stier), and that of the connexion of the account almost requiring this passage as its explanation (De Wette), points to the reason why it was put in, to clear up a narrative otherwise obscure. I would not lay much stress on the variations in the passage, which are only such as are perpetually meeting us in the undoubted text: but the fact that there are no less than seven words used either here only, or here only in this sense, is strong against its genuineness: as is the concurrence of , , , and in omitting it. Of N.T. critics, Griesb. brackets it, ., Meyer, and . omit it,— while Lachm. retains it in his text. De Wette, Lü cke, and Luthardt, are undecided, but inclined more or less strongly against it. As a marginal gloss, it certainly does good service, as explaining both the obscure points— the assemblage of sick, and the answer in ver. 7. κατὰκαιρόν , here, apparently, at intervals: and those irregular ones, or the sick need not have waited there for them. κατέβαινεν , was in the habit of descending: the imperfects continue throughout.] 5. There are two ways of taking the construction of ἔχων : (1) to regard ἔχωνἐντῇἀσθ . as = ἀσθενῶςἔχων , and τριάκονταὀκτὼἔτη as the accus. of duration; which is objectionable on account of the article τῇ , (not on account of the present participle, as De Wette, for it is often found with duration of time,) and as being alien from John’ s usage, which is (2) to place ἔχω in this sense with an accusative of the time: see reff., and ver. 6. So that the construction is ἔχωντριάκ . ὀκτὼἔτηἐντῇἀσθ . Observe, he had been lame thirty-eight years, not at Bethesda all that time. 6. γνούς , i.e. ἐνἐαυτῷ , as on other similar occasions. Our Lord singled him out, being conscious of the circumstances under which he lay there, by that superhuman knowledge of which we had so striking an example in the case of the woman of Samaria. θέλειςὑγ . γεν .] Lightfoot and Semler would supply, “ licet sit sabbatum.” But this is very improbable, see ver. 17. Our Lord did not thus appeal to his hearers’ prejudices, and make His grace dependent on them. Besides, the ὑγιὴςγενέσθαι had in the mind of the man no reference to a healing such as there would be any objection to on the Sabbath; but to the cure by means of the water, which he was there to seek. The question is one of those by which He so frequently testified his compassion, and established (so to speak) a point of connexion between the spirit of the person addressed, and his own gracious purposes. Possibly it may have conveyed to the mind of the poor cripple the idea that at length a compassionate person had come, who might put him in at the next troubling of the water. It certainly is possible that the man’ s long and apparently hopeless infirmity may have given him a look of lethargy and despondency, and the question may have arisen from this: but there is no ground for supposing (Schleiermacher) blame conveyed by it, still less that he was an impostor labouring under some trifling complaint (Paulus and others), and wishing to represent it more important than it was. 7. The man’ s answer implies the popular belief which the spurious but useful insertion in vv. 3, 4 expresses. Bauer asks why the person who brought him there every day, could not have put him in? But no such person is implied. The same slow motion which he describes here, would suffice for his daily coming and going. 8. The ἆροντ . κρ . σου has been treated (Stier, iv. 168, edn. 2: Trench, Mir. 251, edn. 2) as making a difference between the man lame from his birth in Acts 3:8, who walked and leaped and praised God; and this man, who, since sin had been the cause of his disease (ver. 14), is ordered to carry his bed, “ a present memento of his past sin.” Possibly; but our Lord must have had in his view what was to follow, and have ordered it also to bring about this his first open controversy with the Jews. 10. οἱἸουδαῖοι , never the multitude, but always those in authority of some kind, whom John ever puts forward as the representatives of the whole people in their rejection of the Lord. οὐκἔξεστιν ] The bearing of burdens on the Sabbath was forbidden not only by the glosses of the Pharisees, but by the law itself. See Nehemiah 13:15-19: Exodus 31:13-17: Jeremiah 17:21, Jeremiah 17:22. And our Lord does not, as in another case (Luke 13:15, Luke 13:16), appeal here to the reasonableness of the deed being done on the Sabbath, salvo sabbato, but takes altogether loftier ground, as being One greater than the Sabbath. The whole kernel of this incident and discourse is not, that it is lawful to do works of mercy on the Sabbath: but that the Son of God (here) is Lord of the Sabbath. 11. The man’ s excuse is simple and sufficient; and for us, important, inasmuch as it goes into the depth of the matter, and is by the Jews themselves accepted. He who had power to make him whole, had power to suspend that law which was, like the healing, God’ s work. The authority which had overruled one appointment of Providence, could overrule another. I do not mean that this reasoning was present to the man’ s mind;— he very likely spoke only from intense feeling of obligation to One who had done so much for him;— but it lay beneath the words, and the Jews recognized it, by transferring their blame, from the man, to Him who healed him. 12. Not, ‘ who is he that healed thee?’ but they carefully bring out the unfavourable side of what had taken place, as malicious persons always do. 13. Difficulty has been found here from the supposed improbability that some should not have told him, seeing that Jesus was by this time well known in Jerusalem. But this is wholly unnecessary. His fame had not been so spread yet, but that He might during the crowd of strangers at the feast pass unnoticed. ἐξένευσεν , passed on unobserved: just spoke the healing words, and then went on among the crowd; so that no particular attention was attracted to Himself, either by the sick man or others. The context requires this interpretation: being violated by the ordinary one, that Jesus ‘ conveyed himself away, because a multitude was in the place:’ for that would imply that attention had been attracted towards him which He wished to avoid; and in that case he could hardly fail to have been known to the man and to others. Observe, ἐξένευσεν has for its understood object, the man subjectively;— escaped his notice, a crowd being in the place: not referring to any thing which Jesus had done himself. 14. The knowledge of our Lord extended even to the sin committed thirty-eight years ago, from which this long sickness had resulted, for so it is implied here. The χεῖρόντι , as Trench observes (Mir. 254, edn. 2), “ gives us an awful glimpse of the severity of God’ s judgments:” — see Matthew 12:45. 15. The man appears to have done this partly in obedience to the authorities; partly perhaps to complete his apology for himself (Bengel). We can hardly imagine ingratitude in him to have been the cause; especially as ὁποιήσαςαὐτὸνὑγιῆ speaks so plainly of the benefit received: compare ver. 11 and note. 16. ἐδίωκον is not used in the sense of legal prosecution in the N.T.:— persecuted is the best word for it. 17. The true keeping of the rest of the Sabbath was not that otiose and unprofitable cessation from even good deeds, which they would enforce: the Sabbath was made for man;— and, in its Jewish form, for man in a mere state of legal discipline (which truth could not yet be brought out to them, but is implied in this verse, because His people are even as He is— in the liberty wherewith He hath made them free); whereas He, the only-begotten of the Father, doing the works of God in the world, stands on higher ground, and hallows, instead of breaking the Sabbath, by thus working on it. “ He is no more a breaker of the Sabbath than God is, when He upholds with an energy that knows no pause the work of His creation from hour to hour, and from moment to moment; ‘ My Father worketh hitherto, and I work;’ My work is but the reflex of His work. Abstinence from outward work belongs not to the idea of a Sabbath, it is only more or less the necessary condition of it for beings so framed as ever to be in danger of losing the true collection and rest of the spirit in the multiplicity of earthly toil and business. Man indeed must cease from his work if a higher work is to find place in him. He scatters himself in his work, and therefore he must collect himself anew, and have seasons for so doing. But with Him who is one with the Father, it is otherwise. In Him the deepest rest is not excluded by the highest activity.” (Trench, Mir. p. 257, edn. 2.) 18. The ground of the charge is now shifted; and by these last words (ver. 17), occasion is given for one of our Lord’ s most weighty discourses. The Jews understood His words to mean nothing short of peculiar personal Sonship, and thus equality of nature with God. And that this their understanding was the right one, the discourse testifies. All might in one sense, and the Jews did in a closer sense, call God their, or our, Father; but they at once said that the individual use of ‘ My Father’ by Jesus had a totally distinct, and in their view a blasphemous, meaning: this latter especially, because He thus made God a participator in his crime of breaking the sabbath. Thus we obtain from the adversaries of the faith a most important statement of one of its highest and holiest doctrines. 19. The discourse is a wonderful setting forth of the Person and Office of the Son of God in His Ministrations as the Word of the Father. It still has reference to the charge of working on the Sabbath, and the context takes in our Lord’ s answer both to this, ver. 17, and to the Jews’ accusation, ver. 18. In this verse, He states that He cannot work any but the works of God: cannot, by his very relationship to the Father, by the very nature and necessity of the case;— the ἀφ ʼ ἑαυτοῦ being an impossible supposition, and purposely set here to express one:— the Son cannot work of Himself, because He is the Son: His very Person presupposes the Father’ s will and counsel as His will and counsel,— and His perfect knowledge of that will and counsel. And this, because every creature may abuse its freedom, and will contrary to God: but the Son, standing in essential unity with God, cannot, even when become Man, commit sin,— break the Sabbath; for His whole Being and Working is in and of God. ἃγὰρἂν … ] This clause converts the former proposition, and asserts its truth when thus converted. ‘ For it is the very nature of the Son to do whatever the Father doeth.’ Also, to do these works ὁμοίως — after the same plan and proceeding, so that there can be no discord, but unity. 20. For (this last is ensured by the fact, that) the Father loves the Son, and shews to Him (in this the Lord sets forth to us the unfolding of the will and purposes of the Father to (Mark 13:32: Acts 1:7) and by Him, in His Mediatorial office) all things which He Himself does (all the purposes of His secret counsel;— for with the Father, doing is willing; it is only the Son who acts in time); and this manifestation will go on increasing in majesty, that the wonder which now is excited in you by these works may be brought out to its full measure (in the acceptation or rejection of the Son of God— wonder leading naturally to the τιμή of ver. 23). 21. It is very important to observe the distinction here between the working of the Eternal Son (in creation, e.g.) as He is ἐνοὐρανῷ , with God, and His working in the state of His humiliation in which the Father should by degrees advance Him to exaltation and put His enemies under His feet. Of the latter of these mention is made (ver. 20) in the future, of the former in the present. The former belong to the Son as His proper and essential work: the latter are opened out before Him in the process of His passing onward in the humanity which He has taken. And the unfolding of these latter shall all be in the direction of, and in accordance with, the eternal attributes of the Son: see ch. 17:5: resulting in His being exalted to the right hand of the Father. So here,— as it is the Father’ s essential work to vivify the dead (see Romans 8:11: 1 Samuel 2:6 .), so the Son vivifies whom He will: this last οὓςθέλει not implying any selection out of mankind, nor said merely to remove the Jewish prejudice that their own nation alone should rise from the dead,— but meaning, that in every instance where His will is to vivify, the result invariably follows. Observe, this ζωοποιεῖ lays hold of life in its innermost and deepest sense, and thus finds its illustration in the waking both of the outwardly and the spiritually dead. 22. In the οὐδὲγάρ is implied that as the Father does not Himself, by His own proper act, vivify any, but commits all quickening power to the Son:— so is it with judgment also. And judgment contains eminently in itself the οὓςθέλει ,— when ζωοπ . is understood— as it must be now— of bestowing everlasting life. Again; the raising of the outwardly dead is to be understood as a sign that He who works it is appointed Judge of quick and dead, for it is a part of the office of that Judge;— in the vivifying, the judgment is made: see below, ver. 29, and Psalms 72:1-4. 23. This being so, the end of all is, the honour of the Father in and by the Son. He (the Son) is the Lord of life, and the Judge of the world;— all must honour Him with equal honour to that which they pay to the Father:— and whosoever does not, however he may imagine that he honours or approaches God, does not honour him at all;— because He can only be known or honoured by us as ‘ the Father who sent His Son.’ 24. What follows, to ver. 30 incl., is an expansion of the two assertions in vv. 21, 22,— the ζωοποιεῖν and the κρίνειν ,— intimately bound up as they are together. There is a parallelism in vv. 24 and 25 which should be noticed for the right understanding of the words. ὁτὸνλόγονμουἀκούων in one, answers to οἱνεκροὶἀκούσονταιτῆςφωνῆςτοῦυἱοῦτοῦθεοῦ in the other. It is a kind of hearing which awakens to life,— one accompanied by πιστεύειντῷπέμψαντίμε . And this last is not barely ‘ Him who sent Me,’ but Him, the very essence of belief in Whom is in this, that He sent Me (see ch. 12:44). And the dative here after πιστεύω expresses that belief in the testimony of God that He hath sent His Son, which is dwelt on so much 1 John 5:9-12, where, ver. 10, we have the same ὁμὴπιστεύωντῷθεῷ . ἔχειζ . αἰ .] So 1 John 5:12, 1 John 5:13. The πιστεύων and the ἔχειζ . αἰ . are commensurate:— where the faith is, the possession of eternal life is:— and when the one remits, the other is forfeited. But here the faith is set before us as an enduring faith, and its effects described in their completion (see Ephesians 1:19, Ephesians 1:20). εἰςκρίσινοὐκἔρχεται ,— κρίσις being the separation,— the effect of which is to gather out of the Kingdom all that offendeth;— and thus regarding especially the damnatory part of judgment,— he who believes comes not into, has no concern with, κρίσις . Compare Psalms 142:2 LXX. The reckoning which ends with εὖἀγαθὲδοῦλε , is not κρίσις : the reward is of free grace. In this sense, the believers in Christ will not be judged according to their works: they are justified before God by faith, and by God— θεὸςὁδικαιῶν , τίςὁκατακρίνων ; Their ‘ passage over’ from death into life has already taken place,— from the state of spiritual death into that ζωὴαἰώνιος , which in their believing state they ἔχουσι already. It is to be observed that our Lord speaks in very similar terms of the unbelieving being condemned already, in ch. 3:18. The perfect sense of μεταβέβηκεν must not be weakened nor explained away,— see ref. 25. This verse continues to refer to spiritual awakening from the dead. The ἔρχεταιὥρακ . νῦνἐστιν is an expression (see ref.) used of those things which are to characterize the spiritual Kingdom of Christ, which was even now begun among men, but not yet brought (until the day of Pentecost, Act_2) to its completion. Thus it cometh, in its fulness,— and even now is begun. οἱνεκροί ,— in reference to ἐκθανάτον of the preceding verse— the spiritually dead:— see below on ver. 28. τῆςφωνῆς , His call to awake, in its widest and deepest sense;— by His own preaching, by His Apostles, His ministers, &c. &c. In all these He speaks to the spiritually dead. οἱἀκούσ .] Not ἀκούσαντες merely, which would be ‘ and having heard it, shall live:’ but οἱἀκούσ ., and they who have heard it (or, who hear it) shall live. This determines the verse to be spoken of spiritual, not bodily awakening. οἱἀκούσαντες are the persons to whom the Lord cried so often ὁἔχωνὦταἀκούειν , ἀκουέτω :— the persons who stand opposed to those addressed in ver. 40, οὐθέλετεἐλθεῖνπρόςμε , ἴναζωὴνἔχητε . ζήσουσιν is explained in the next verse. 26, 27. We have here again ζωοποιεῖν and κρίνειν bound together as the two great departments of the Son’ s working;— the former, as substantiating the ζήσουσιν just uttered; the latter, as leading on to the great announcement of the next verse. But the two departments spring from two distinct sources, united in the Person of the Incarnate Son of God. The Father hath given Him to have life in Himself, as He is the Son of God. We have none of us life in ourselves: in Him we live and move and have our being. But He, as the Father is, is the source of Life. Then again the Father hath given Him power to pass judgment, because He is the Son of Man; man is to be judged by Man,— by that Man whom God hath appointed, who is the inclusive Head of humanity, and to whom mankind, and man’ s world, pertain by right of covenant-purchase. This κρίσινποιεῖν leads the thought to the great occasion when judgment shall be executed; which accordingly is treated of in the next verse. 28, 29. μὴθαυμ ., as ch. 3:7, introduces a matter of even greater wonder to them;— the astounding proof which shall be given in the face of the universe that this is so. ἔρχεταιὥρα , but not καὶνῦνἐστιν this time,— because He is now speaking of the great day of the resurrection: when not merely οἱνεκροί , but πάντεςοἱἐντοῖςμνημείοις , shall hear His voice, and οἱἀκούσαντες are not specified, because all shall hear in the fullest sense. Observe that here, as elsewhere, when the judgment according to works is spoken of, it is the great general resurrection of Mat 25:31-46, which (and the notes) compare. So here we have not οἱπιστεύσαντες and οἱμὴπιστεύσαντες , but the categories reach far wider, including indeed in this most general form the first resurrection unto life also— and the two great classes are described as οἱτὰἀγ . ποιήσαντες and οἱτὰφαῦλαπράξαντες . On the difference between ποιεω and πράσσω , see note on ch. 3:20, 21. Observe, that ζωή and κρίσις stand opposed here, as in ver. 24:— not that there is no such thing as an ἀνάστασιςθανάτου (Schleiermacher, in Stier, iv. 194, edn. 2), but that it is involved in this κρίσις . Olshausen observes (ii. 153) that this, and Acts 24:15, are the only direct declarations in the N.T. of a bodily resurrection of the unjust as well as of the just. It is implied in some places, e.g. Matthew 10:28, and less plamly in Matthew 25:34 ff.: Revelation 20:5, Revelation 20:12, and directly asserted in the O.T., Daniel 12:2. In 1Co_15,— as the object was to convince believers in Christ of the truth of the resurrection of their bodies,— no allusion is made to those who are not believers. 30. Here begins (see Stier, iv. 195, edn. 2) the second part of the discourse,— but bound on most closely to the first (ver. 23),— treating of the testimony by which these things were substantiated, and which they ought to have received. This verse is, however, perhaps rather a point of transition to the next, at which the testimony is first introduced. As the Son does nothing of Himself,— but His working and His judgment all spring from His deep unity of will and being with the Father,— this His great and last judgment, and all His other ones, will be just and holy (He being not separate from God, but one with Him); and therefore His witness given of Himself ver. 17, and called by them blasphemy, is true and holy also. Observe, the discourse here passes into the first person, which was understood before, because he had called himself the Son of God,— but is henceforth used expressly. 31. This assertion is not to be trifled away by an accommodation, or supposed to be introduced by ‘ Ye will say to Me:’ — see by all means ch. 8:12-14 and notes. The words are said in all earnestness, and are strictly true. If such a separation, and independent testimony, as is here supposed, could take place, it would be a falsification of the very conditions of the Truth of God as manifested by the Son, Who being the λόγος , speaks, not of himself, but of the Father. And in this sense ch. 8:14 is eminently true also, the φῶς being the ἀπαύγασματῆςδόξηςτοῦπατρός . 32. ἄλλος can, by the inner coherence of the discourse, be no other than the Father, of Whom so much has been said in the former part, but Who is hinted at rather than mentioned in this (πατρός in ver. 30 is spurious). It cannot be John,— from whom (ver. 34) our Lord took not his testimony. Similar modes of alluding to the Father occur ch. 8:50: see also ch. 8:18, and Matthew 10:28 and . Many interpreters however understand it of John,— Chrysostom, Nonnus, Theophylact, Euthym.:— and lately De Wette has defended the view with some acuteness. But he has certainly missed the inner coherence of the passage. The reason why our Lord mentions John is not ‘ as ascending from the lesser witness to the greater,’ but purposely to remove the idea that He meant him only or principally by these words, and to set his testimony in its right place: then at ver. 36 He returns again to the ἄλλοςμαρ . περὶἐμοῦ . καὶσἶδα .… ] This is the Son’ s testimony to the Father’ s truth: see ch. (3:33) 7:28; 8:26, 55. It testifies to the full consciousness on the part of the Son, even in the days of his humiliation, of the righteousness of the Father: and (for the testimony of the Father to the Son is contained in the Scriptures) also to His distinct recognition and approval (Psalms 40:6-8) of psalm and type and prophecy, as applied to Himself and His work. 33. See ch. 1:19. The connexion is,— another testifies of Me (ver. 32)— ‘ not John only, although he, when sent to, did certainly testify to the truth; for’ &c. τῇἀληθείᾳ , not merely (Grot.) “ modeste dictum;” — but necessarily. ἐμοί would have been asserting what the next verse denies. 34. ‘ I take not my testimony (the testimony to Me of which I have spoken) from man, but I mention John’ s testimony that you may make the intended use of it, to be led to Me for salvation.’ 35. This ἦν shews, as Stier rightly observes, that John was now cast into prison, if not executed. ὁλύχνος ] The article has been taken by some (e.g. Bengel, Lü cke, Stier) to point to the prophecies concerning John. But we have no passage in the O.T. which designates Elias in such terms. In ref. Sirach we read of him, ἀνέστηπροφήτηςὡςπῦρ , καὶὁλόγοςαὐτοῦὡςλαμπὰςἐκαίετο , which Stier thinks may be referred to here. We may, as indeed he also suggests, believe that those words represent or gave rise to a common way of speaking of Elias, as certain Rabbis were called ‘ The candle of the Law,’ &c. (Lightf.) De Wette takes the article as meaning, ‘ the lamp which was to lead you,’ &c. καιόμενος , not καίων , as it is ὁλύχνος , not τὸφῶς : lumen illuminatum, not lumen illuminans: see note on Matthew 5:14. καὶφαίνων (lit up), and shining. The description sets forth the derived, and transitory nature of John’ s light. ὑμεῖςδὲ .… ] See Ezekiel 33:30, Ezekiel 33:32. ‘ But you wished only to disport yourselves in his light for a time— came out to him in crowds at first,— and— like silly children who play with the fire till it burns and hurts them, and then shrink from and loathe it,— when he began to speak of deep repentance as the preparation for God’ s Kingdom, and laid the axe to the root of the trees, you left him.’ No one cared, when he was imprisoned and put to death. And even those few who remained true to him, did not follow his direction to Christ. For the mass of the people, and their leaders, his mission was in vain (Lü cke, ii. 75). 36. ἔχωτὴνμ . μείζων ] Literally, I have my witness greater (μείζων being probably a solœ cism like πλήρης in ch. 1:14, a nominative in concord with an accusative).… τουἸωάννου , not [perhaps], ‘ than that of John;’ — but, than John himself. John was a testimony. τὰγὰρἔργα , not His miracles alone, although those principally; but the whole of His life and course of action, full as it was of holiness, in which, and as forming harmonious parts of which, His miracles were testimonies of His divine mission. His greatest work (ch. 6:29) was the awakening of faith, the ζωοποιεῖν of which we have heard before, to which the miracles were but as means to an end. ἃδέδωκεν .… ἵνατελ .] See ch. 17:4 and note. αὐτὰτὰἔργαἃποιῶ ] The repetition is to shew that His life and working was an exact fulfilment of the Father’ s will. The works which the Father hath given Me to do, those very works which I am doing, … 37-39. The connexion of these verses has been much disputed. I believe it will be found to be this: ‘ The works of which I have spoken, are only indirect testimonies; the Father Himself, who sent Me, has given direct testimony concerning Me. Now that testimony cannot be derived by you, nor any man, by direct communication with Him; for ye have never heard His voice nor seen His shape. (Or perhaps have not heard His voice, as your fathers did from Sinai,— nor seen His visional appearance, as the Prophets did.) Nor (ver. 38), in your case, has it been given by that inward witness (ch. 3:33: 1 John 4:13, 1 John 4:14) which those have (and had in a measure, even before the gift of the Spirit— see inter al., Psalms 51:11) in whom His word abides; for ye have not His word abiding in you, not believing on Him whom He hath sent. Yet (ver. 39) there is a form of this direct testimony of the Father, accessible even to you;— ‘ search the Scriptures,’ &c. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Lampe, Bengel, &c., understand φωνή to refer to the voice at our Lord’ s baptism: but, as Lü cke observes, πώποτε forbids this. I may also add that the perfect, ἀκηκόατε , excludes it. Had reference been to a distinct event, it must have been ἠκούσατε ,— and (Lü cke) τὴνφωνήν . Observe that the testimony in the Scriptures is not the only, nor the chief one, intended in ver. 37, but (as De Wette well maintains) the direct testimony in the heart of the believer;— which, as the Jews have not, they are directed to another form of the Father’ s testimony, that in the Scriptures. ἐραυνᾶτε , either indicative (Cyril, Erasm., Beza, Lampe, Bengel, Kuinoel, Lü cke, Tholuck, Olshausen, De Wette), ‘ Ye search the Scriptures, for ye believe ye have &c., and they are they that testify of Me, and (yet, ver. 40) ye will not come to Me that ye may have life:’ or imperative (Chrys., Theophyl., Euthym., August., Luther, Calvin, ., Paulus, Stier), in which case generally a period has been placed after ἐμοῦ , and a fresh sentence begins at καὶοὐθέλ . I believe the imperative sense only will be found to cohere with the previous verses:— see above, where I have given the context. And no other sense will suit the word ἐραυνᾶτε , which cannot be used, as in the indicative it would be, with blame attached to it,— ‘ ye make nice and frivolous search into the letter of Scripture;’ but, as ἐξερευν . in ref. Ps., implies a thorough search (see also 1 Peter 1:11) into the contents and spirit of Scripture. Besides, the emphatic position of ἐραυνᾶτε before τὰςγραφάς , while it does not absolutely necessitate the imper. sense, makes it much more probable than the indic., which would be conveyed by τὰςγρ . ἐραυνᾶτε . Luthardt (ii. 21) remarks, that the almost unanimous verdict of the Greek Fathers (Cyril however is a remarkable exception) for the imper. decides him in its favour. ὅτιὑμ . δοκ .] Ye (emphatic) imagine that in them (emphatic) ye have eternal life ;— but they, like all other secondary ordinances, have a spiritual end in view, and that end is to testify, from first to last of Me. 40. I would connect these words with the former, and regard them as describing the inconsistency of those who think that they ζωὴνἔχειν in the Scriptures, and yet will not come to Him of whom they testify, ἵναζωὴνἔχωσιν . So that καί will be spoken in a fine irony, And ye will not come to Me! Observe, this command to the Jews to search their Scriptures, applies à fortiori to Christians; who are yet, like them, in danger of idolizing a mere written book, believing that in the Bible they have eternal life, and missing the personal knowledge of Him of whom the Scriptures testify. The οὐθέλετε here sets forth strikingly the freedom of the will, on which the unbeliever’ s condemnation rests: see ch. 3:19. 41-44. The connexion seems to be;— the standing-points of our Lord and of the Jews were not only different, but were inconsistent with and exclusive of one another. He sought not glory from below, from man’ s praise or report: the Father testified to Him, in all the ways which have been specified; but this testimony they could not receive, nor discover Him in their Scriptures, because human regards and ambition and intrigue had blinded their eyes, and they had not the love of God (the very first command in their law, Deuteronomy 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:5) in their hearts. 41. οὐλαμβ ., not merely, ‘ I do not desire,’ ‘ non capto;’ — but, ‘ I do not receive;’ — ‘ no such praise nor testimony accrues to Me, nor has in Me that on which it can lay hold.’ ‘ My glory is altogether from another source.’ 42. ἀλλά draws forcibly the distinction, setting Himself and them in strong contrast. ἔγνωκαὑμ .] By long trial and bearing with your manners these many generations; and personally also:— “ Hoc radio penetrat corda auditorum.” Bengel. ἀγάπην ] Luthardt remarks, perhaps refining somewhat too much,— τὴνἀγάπην , because “ the love which ye ought to have” is imported: τοῦθεοῦ — “ of (for) your God the God of Israel.” So that the words are spoken, not of an ungodly mind in general, but of an absence of that love which God’ s covenant people should have for Him. “ They would none of Jesus: for they were not true Israelites.” This love, if they had it, would teach them,— the whole heart, and soul, and mind, and strength being given to God,— to seek honour only from Him,— and thus to appreciate the glory which He hath given to His Son, and His testimony concerning Him. 43. The first clause is clear. In the latter we have a prophetic declaration regarding the Jews in the latter days. This ἄλλος is in strong contrast with the ἄλλος of ver. 32. ‘ The testimony of that Other, who is greater than I, ye will not receive; but if another come in his own name, him ye will receive.’ The words are perhaps spoken primarily of the false or Idol-Messiah, the Antichrist, who shall appear in the latter days (2 Thessalonians 2:8-12); whose appearance shall be κατ ʼ ἐνέργειαντοῦσατανᾶ (their father, ch. 8:44), ἀποδεικνὺςἑαυτὸνὅτιἐστὶνθεός , 2 Thessalonians 2:4;— and doubtless, in that their final reference, embrace also all the cases in which the Jews have more or less received those false Messiahs who have been foreshadowers of the great Antichrist, and indeed all the cases in which such a spirit has been shewn by them, even in the absence of false Messiahs. 44. πῶςδύνασθε (emphatic) is grounded on οὐθέλετε — is the consequence of the carnal regards in which they lived. λαμβάνοντες here implies ‘ captantes’ also. παρὰτοῦμόνουθεοῦ , not ‘ from God only’ (E. V. and De Wette), which is ungrammatical (requiring μόνου to be either after θεοῦ , see Matthew 4:4; Matthew 12:4; Matthew 17:8, or before τοῦθεοῦ , Luke 5:21; Luke 6:4: Hebrews 9:7. Lü cke); but from the only God: in contradistinction to the idolatry of the natural heart, which is ever setting up for itself other sources of honour, worshipping man, or self,— or even, as in the case alluded to in the last verse, Satan,— instead of God. The words τοῦμόνουθεοῦ are very important, because they form the point of passage to the next verses; in which the Jews are accused of not believing the writings of Moses, the very pith and kernel of which was the unity of God, and the having no other gods but Him. 45. The work of Christ is not κατηγορεῖν , even as He is Judge;— but κρίνειν , by the appointment of the Father. And therefore— though He has said so much of the unbelief of the Jews, and charged them in the last verse with breach of the central law of God— He will not accuse them; nay, it is not needful;— for Moses, whom they disbelieved, while vainly hoping in him (see above on ver. 39),— ἐπαναπαυόμενοινόμῳ , Romans 2:17,— already accused them: see Deuteronomy 31:21, Deuteronomy 31:26, and ch. 7:19. 46. The former part of this verse should not be rendered as in E. V. ‘ had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me;’ but if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me. The imperfects render this necessary: the other rendering would require aorists. περὶἐμοῦἔγραψεν — “ nusquam non.” Bengel. This is an important testimony by the Lord to the subject of the whole Pentateuch;— it is περὶἐμοῦ . It is also a testimony to the fact, of Moses having written those books, which were then, and are still, known by his name. 47. γράμμασιν here does not, in the sense, = γραφαῖς : for ταῖςἐκείνουγραφαῖς could not be used;— the γραφή being ἡθείαγραφή , not Μωυσέωςγραφή ,— but the γράμματα were those of Moses; the outward expression of the γραφή ,— the letters, and words, as found on paper:— just as the ῥήματα in the other case are the outward expression of the λόγος . The meaning is: ‘ men give greater weight to what is written and published, the letter of a book, than to mere word of mouth;— and ye in particular give greater honour to Moses, than to Me: if then ye believe not what he has written, which comes down to you hallowed by the reverence of ages,— how can you believe the words which are uttered by Me, to whom you are hostile?’ This however is not all:— Moses leads to Christ:— is one of the witnesses by which the Father hath testified of Him: ‘ if then ye have rejected the means, how shall ye reach the end?’ ‘ If your unbelief has stopped the path, how shall ye arrive at Him to whom it leads?’ Meyer is quite right in maintaining that the opposition does not lie between γράμμασιν and ῥήμασιν , but between ἐκείνου and τοῖςἐμοῖς . Those who can, should by all means consult Stier, whose exposition of the above important discourse is very elaborate and valuable:— Reden Jesu, vol. iv. pp. 170-233, 2nd edn. Chap. 6. Jesus the life in the flesh. 1-15. Miraculous feeding of five thousand men. Matthew 14:13-21.Mark 6:30-44 Mark 6:30-44.Luke 9:10-17 Luke 9:10-17,— in each of which compare the notes throughout. Here we have another example of John relating a miracle with the view of introducing a discourse, and that discourse carries on the testimony of Jesus to Himself. In the last, He was the Son of God, testified to by the Father, received by faith, rejected by unbelief: here He is son of man, the incarnate Life of the world, and we have the unbelief of the Jews and His own disciples set in strong contrast with the feeding on and participating in Him as the Bread of Life. 1. μετὰταῦτα gives us no fixed date: see on ch. 5:1. As Lü cke remarks, the ἀπῆλθ . πέραντῆςθαλ .… , if connected with the preceding discourse, would be unintelligible,— and can only be understood by the fragmentary character of this Gospel as relates to mere narration, and the well-known fact being presupposed, that His Ministry principally took place in Galilee. Matt. gives this passage over the lake in connexion with the execution of John the Baptist: Mark and Luke, with the return of the Twelve from their mission. (The Twelve were probably gathered, or their gathering finished, in the interval since ch. 5:47, during which time their mission also had taken place.) τῆςΙ ʼ . τῆςΤιβ .] The last appellation is probably inserted for the sake of Gentile readers, to whom it was best known by that name: thus Pausan. v. 7. 3, αὐτὸςοἶδαἸόρδανονλίμνηνΤιβερίδαὀνομαζομένηνδιοδεύοντα : but it was more usually called, as by Josephus, Γεννησάρ or Γεννησαρῖτις , 1 Macc. 11:67: Strabo xvi. 2 (Ptolem. v. 15, Lü cke). τῆςΤιβ . cannot mean that He came from Tiberias, however true that may have been. That would have been ἀπὸ or ἐκΤιβεριάδος . It is possible, though not likely, that τῆςΤιβ . may have been a gloss, and have found its way into the text very early. But at all events we must not adopt the reading of &c., εἰςτὰμέρητ . Τιβ .,— for the fact was just otherwise: compare vv. 2 and 23. 2. It is evident from this that a circuit in Galilee and works of healing are presupposed (see Matt. ver. 13: Mark, ver. 33: Luke, ver. 11). 3. τὸὄρος , perhaps ‘ the hill country’ on the shore of the lake = ἔρημοντόπονκατ ʼ ἰδίον , Matt. The expression is used by John only here and in ver. 15, but no inference can be drawn from that, for this is the only portion of the Galilæ an Ministry related by him. 4. This will account, not for so great a multitude coming to Him, but perhaps (?) for the circumstance that the people at that time were gathered in multitudes, ready to set out on their journey to Jerusalem. We must remember also that the reference of the following discourse to the Passover being so pointed, the remark would naturally be here inserted by the Evangelist: but I would not, with Luthardt (i. 80; ii. 41) insist on this as the only reason for his making it. 5. Here there is considerable difficulty, on account of the variation from Matt., Mark, and Luke, who relate that the disciples came to the Lord after He had been teaching and healing the multitudes, and when it was now evening,— and asked him to dismiss the multitudes, that they might buy food;— whereupon He commanded, ‘ Give ye them to eat;’ — whereas here apparently, on their first coming, the Lord Himself suggests the question, how they were to be fed, to Philip. This difference is not to be passed over, as it has usually been by English Commentators, without notice. Still less are we to invent improbable and hardly honest harmonistic shifts to piece the two narratives together. There can be no doubt, fairly and honestly speaking, that the narratives, in their mere letter, disagree. But those who are not slaves to the mere letter will see here that inner and deeper accordance of which Augustine (De Consensu Evang. ii. 46, vol. iii. pt. i.) speaks in commenting on this passage: “ Ex qua universa varietate verborum, rerum autem sententiarumque concordia, satis apparet salubriter nos doceri, nihil quæ rendum in verbis nisi loquentium voluntatem; cui demonstrandæ invigilare debent omnes veridici narratores, cum de homine vel de angelo vel de Deo aliquid narrant.” I repeat the remark so often made in this Commentary,— that if we were in possession of the facts as they happened, there is no doubt that the various forms of the literal narrations would fall into their places, and the truthfulness of each historian would be apparent:— but as we cannot at present reconcile them in this way, the humble and believing Christian will not be tempted to handle the word of God deceitfully, but to admire the gracious condescension which has given us the evidence of so many independent witnesses, whose very difference in detail makes their accordance in the great central truths so much the more weighty. On every point of importance here, the four sacred historians are entirely and absolutely agreed. That every minor detail related by them had its ground in historical fact, we fully believe; it is the tracking it to this ground in each case, which is now beyond our power; and here comes in the simplicity and reliance of faith: and the justification of those who believe and receive each Gospel as they find it written. πρὸςΦ .] Why to Philip, does not appear; perhaps some reason lay in the πειράζωναὐτόν , which is now lost to us. From his words in ch. 14:8, we cannot infer, as has been done by Chrys. (Hom. xlii. 1, in Joann. vol. viii. p. 249) and others, that he was weaker in faith, or tardier in spiritual apprehension, than the rest. Of all the Apostles who appear in the sacred narrative, something might be quoted shewing equal unreadiness to believe and understand. I would take the circumstance as simple matter of fact, implying perhaps that Philip was nearest to our Lord at the moment. We must not fall into the mistake of supposing that Philip being of Bethsaida the city of Andrew and Peter (ch. 1:45) throws any light on the question: for the Bethsaida near which our Lord now was, Luke 9:10, was another place, see notes there. πόθεν — whence— ‘ from what store.’ Hence Philip’ s answer. 6. He knew:— by this St. John must be understood not only to rescue our Lord from the imputation of asking counsel of Philip, but to refer the miraculous act, on His part, to His purpose of exhibiting Himself as the Son of Man the Life of the World in the flesh. 7. See notes on Mark. 8. Meyer remarks, that εἷςἐκτῶνμαθητῶναὐτοῦ may seem strange, seeing that Philip also was this: but that it has its pragmatic value, seeing that, Philip having been asked in vain, one from among the circle of the disciples answers, and is afterwards specified as having been Andrew. In the three other Gospels, the loaves and fishes appear as the disciples’ own;— and we have thus a very simple but very instructive instance of the way in which differences in detail arose. They were their own,— but not till they had bought them. 9. κριθίνους , the usual barley bread of the lower orders. ὀψάρια = ἰχθύδια , Suidas, but of later Greek usage:— at first used to signify any thing subsidiary to bread as a relish, such as meat of all kinds, and condiments. Later however, from fish being, in the deeply coast-indented country of Greece, the most common animal food, it came to be applied to that alone or principally— (see art. Opsonium in the Dictionary of Gr. and Rom. Antiquities). 10. χόρτοςπολύς , in accordance with the time of year, the latter end of spring, after the rainy season. On ἀναπεσεῖν see Mark and Luke, who describe the manner. οἱἄμδρες ] This is a particular touch of accuracy in the account of an eye-witness which has not I think been noticed. Why in the other accounts should mention be made only of the men in numbering them? Matt. has, it is true, χωρὶςγυν . κ . παιδ ., leaving it to be inferred that there was some means of distinguishing;— the others merely give [ὡσεὶ ] ἄνδρεςπεντακισχ . without any explanation. But here we see how it came to be so— the men alone were arranged in companies, or alone arranged so that any account was taken of them: the women and children being served promiscuously; who indeed, if the multitude were a paschal caravan (?), or parts of many such, would not be likely to be very numerous;— and here again we have a point of minute truthfulness brought out. 11. On the process of the miracle, see notes on Matt. John describes the διάδοσις as being the act of the Lord Himself, and leaves the intervention of the disciples to be understood. εὐχαριστήσας here answers to εὐλόγησεν in the other Gospels. It was the ‘ grace’ of the father of the family; perhaps the ordinary one in use among the Jews. John seems to connect with it the idea brought out by Luke, εὐλ . αὐτούς , i.e. τοὺςἄρτους : see ver. 23. 12. Peculiar to John. The command, one end of which was certainly to convince the disciples of the power which had wrought the miracle, is given by our Lord a moral bearing also. They collected the fragments for their own use, each in his κόφινος , the ordinary furniture of the travelling Jew (“ quorum cophinus fœ numque supellex,” Sat. iii. 14), to carry his food, lest he should be polluted by that of the people through whose territory he passed: see note on Matthew 15:32. Observe, that here the 12 baskets are filled with the fragments of the bread alone: but in Mark, with those of the fishes also. We must not altogether miss the reference to the twelve tribes of Israel, typifying the Church which was to be fed with the bread of life to the end of time. 14. On ὁπροφ . see note on ch. 1:21,— ὁπροφ . εἶσύ ; 15. After such a recognition, nothing was wanting but that the multitudes who were journeying to the Passover should take Jesus with them and proclaim Him king of the Jews in the holy City itself. The other three Evangelists, while they do not give any intimation of this reason of our Lord’ s withdrawal, relate the fact, and Luke preserves in the very next verse a trace of its motive,— by the question ‘ Whom do the people say that I am?’ and the answer, expressing the very confession of the people here. 16-21. Jesus walks on the sea. Matthew 14:22-33.Mark 6:45-52 Mark 6:45-52. Omitted by Luke. An important and interesting question arises, Why is this miracle here inserted by St. John? That he ever inserts for the mere purpose of narration, I cannot believe. The reason seems to me to be this: to give to the Twelve, in the prospect of so apparently strange a discourse respecting His Body, a view of the truth respecting that Body, that it and the things said of it were not to be understood in a gross corporeal, but in a supernatural and spiritual sense. And their very terror, and reassurance, tended to impress that confidence in Him which kept them firm, when many left Him, ver. 66. 16. ὀψία , here, will be during the time between the ὀψία of Matthew 14:15, and that of ib. ver. 23. [The Jews commonly reckoned two evenings: see the introductory note on Matthew 26:17-19. κατέβησαν — by the command of Jesus (Matt., Mark). 17. ἤρχοντο — denoting the unfinished action— they were making for the other side of the sea, in the direction of Capernaum; πρὸςΒηθσαϊδάν , Mark, which would be the same thing. It would appear as if the disciples were lingering along shore with the expectation of taking in Jesus: but night had fallen, and He had not come to them, and the sea began to be stormy (ver. 18). Having therefore set out (ver. 19), and rowed, &c. The οὖν seems to me to render this supposition necessary,— to bind their having rowed twenty-five or thirty stadia, with the fact that the Lord had not come, and it was dark, and the sea swelling into a storm. The lake is (Jos. B. J. 3.10. 7) forty stadia wide: so that, as we can hardly assume the passage to have been to a point directly opposite, they were somewhere about μέσοντῆςθαλάσσης , Matt. ver. 24. 18. διεγείρετο , was becoming thoroughly agitated: was rising. 19-21. περ . ἐπὶτῆςθαλ .] There surely can be no question in the mind of an unprejudiced reader, that it is John’ s intention to relate a miracle;— nor again,— that there could be in the minds of the disciples no doubt about that miracle,— no chance of a mistake as to what they saw. I have treated of ἐπὶτῆςθαλ . on Matthew, ver. 25. They were afraid:— but upon being reassured by His voice, they were willing to take Him into the ship; and upon their doing so, the ship in a comparatively short time (or perhaps immediately, by miracle, but I prefer the other) was at the land to which they had been going, viz. by the storm ceasing, and the ship making smooth way (ἐκόπασενὁἄνεμος , Matt., Mark). It seems to me that the above interpretation of ἤθελονοὖνλαβεῖν is absolutely necessary to account for the οὖν , and quite in accordance with John’ s usage of θέλω (see reff.). Some of the German Commentators (even De Wette among them) have created a difficulty, by strangely rendering ἤθελον , ‘ they wished’ , but the ship was immediately, &c.— i.e. they were already close to the land, and so there was no occasion. Prof. Bleek (Beiträ ge, pp. 103-4) half adopts this view:— adding to it, I am sorry to see, that perhaps Jesus was on the land, and the disciples in the storm and darkness thought Him to be on the sea. 22-59. The multitudes follow Jesus to Capernaum, where, in the synagogue, He discourses to them on Himself as the Bread of Life. 22-24. These verses are involved and parenthetical in construction, but very characteristic of the minute care with which the Evangelist will account for every circumstance which is essential to his purpose in the narrative. ὁὄχλος ] We are not to understand the whole multitude who were fed,— but that portion of them which had remained on the coast over the night. Many had probably dispersed to the villages about, or perhaps taken up their night quarters more inland. πέραντ . θαλ ., i.e. on the east coast. We are supposed to be at Capernaum. ἦν is not pluperfect in sense— the meaning is regulated by εἶδον — they were aware that there was no other ship there but one, and that Jesus did not, &c. Then the ἦλθεν afterwards, belonging to the same set of facts, is in the same tense, but not pluperfect: came, not ‘ had come.’ The πλοιάρια had perhaps brought some of them thither; or the spot ἐγγὺςτ . τόπου , &c. might have been some landing-place of merchandise. 25. πέραντ . θαλ . is now the west bank;— we have been crossing the sea with the multitude. πότε , as Stier remarks, includes πῶς in its meaning. Our Lord leaves the question unanswered, because it was not for a sign to these people that He had miraculously crossed the lake. 26. The seeking Him, on the part of these people,— to Him, who saw the hearts,— was merely a low desire to profit by His wonderful works,— not a reasonable consequence of deduction from His miracles that He was the Saviour of the world. And from this low desire of mere satisfaction of their carnal appetite, He takes occasion in the following discourse to raise them to spiritual desire after Himself, the Bread of Life. The discourse forms a parallel with that in ch. 4. 27. ἐργάζ ., imperative: another instance of the construction which I have advocated in ch. 5:39. The E. V., ‘ Labour not for,’ does not give the sense of ἐργάζ . They had not laboured in this case for the βρῶσιςἀπολλυμένη , but it had been furnished miraculously. A better rendering would be, Busy not yourselves about,— Do not weary yourselves for,— which they were doing, by thus coming after our Lord: [but best of all Work not for: so as to preserve the connexion between verses 27, 29, 30. τὴνἀπολλ . “ whose nourishing power passes away,” De Wette. Rather perhaps more literally, which perisheth, E. V.:— the useless part of it, in being cast out;— the useful, in becoming part of the body which perishes (see 1 Corinthians 6:13). ἀλλὰτ . βρ .] It is important to bear in mind that the ἐργάζεσθαι spoken of above, which also applies to this, was not a ‘ working for,’ or ‘ bringing about of,’ but a following Christ in order to obtain. So the meaning will be, but seek to obtain, by following after Me.… And thus μὴ .… ἀγγά keeps its true literal force, Do not.… but. τὴνμένουσανεἰςζ . αἰ .] See ch. 4:14. If this βρῶσις remains to eternal life, it must be spiritual food. ἣν .… δώσει ] See ch. 4 ib. ἥν agrees with βρῶσιν , not with ζωήν . δώσει , future, because the great Sacrifice was not yet offered: so in ch. 4. ὁυἱὸςτ . ἀνθρ ., emphatic here and belonging to this discourse, since it is of His Flesh that He is about to speak. τοῦτονγὰρ .… ] for Him the Father sealed, even God. ἐσφράγ ., by undoubted testimony, as at His baptism; and since, by His miracles, see ch. 10:36: not, ‘ stamped with the image of His Person,’ which is altogether beside the present subject, and inconsistent with the meaning of σφραγίζω . 28. The people understand His ἐργάζεσθε literally, and dwell upon it. They quite seem to think that the food which is to endure for ever is to be spiritually interpreted; and they therefore ask this question,— referring the ἐργάζ . to the works of the law. τὰἔργατοῦθεοῦ must not be taken to mean ‘ the works which God works,’ but, as in Jeremiah 48:10 (31:10 LXX): 1 Corinthians 15:58, the works well pleasing to God. 29. The meaning is not,— that faith is wrought in us by God, is the work of God; but that the truest way of working the work of God is to believe on Him whom He hath sent. ἔργον , not ἔργα , because there is but this one, properly speaking, and all the rest are wrapt up in it (see James 1:25). This is a most important saying of our Lord, as containing the germ of that teaching afterwards so fully expanded in the writings of Paul. “ I know not,” says Schleiermacher (cited by Stier, iv. 231, edn. 2), “ where we can find any passage, even in the writings of the Apostles, which says so clearly and significantly, that all eternal life in men proceeds from nothing else than faith in Christ.” 30, 31. This answers to ch. 4:12, ‘ Art thou greater than our father Jacob,’ &c. It is spoken in unbelief and opposition; not, as many have supposed, as a request for the Bread of Life, meaning it by the sign, but in the ordinary sign seeking spirit of the Jews. Stier says well, “ They have been hesitating between better and worse thoughts, till at last unbelief prevails.” The σημεῖον here demanded is the sign from heaven, the proof of the sealing by God; such a proof would be, in their estimation, compared with His present miracles, as the manna (bread from heaven) was, compared to the multiplied loaves and fishes. The manna was extolled by the Jews as the greatest miracle of Moses. Josephus calls it θεῖονκαὶπαράδοξονβρῶμα : see also Wisd. 16:20, 21. “ They forgot that their fathers disbelieved Moses almost from the time when they began to eat the manna; and that the Psalm from which they quote most strongly sets forth this;— that they despised the manna, and preferred ordinary meat to it.” Stier. Observe our Lord’ s πιστ . εἰς and their πιστ . σοι . The former, the casting their whole hopes and faith on Him, is what He requires: but they will not even give the latter, common credence, to Him. Their τίἐργάζῃ ; Meyer remarks, is a retort of our Lord’ s command, ver. 27. There is no σύ expressed, but the stress is on the τί . 32. Our Lord lays open the course of their argument. They have not mentioned Moses,— nor was the giving of the manna a miracle performed by Moses;— but He knew that the comparison between Moses and Himself was in their minds, and answers by exposing the error which represented Moses as the giver of the manna. Neither again was that the true bread from heaven. It was, in one sense, bread from heaven;— but not in this sense. It was a type and shadow of the true bread from heaven, which My Father is giving (δίδωσιν ,— or perhaps the abstract present,— giveth) to you. Our Lord does not here deny, but asserts the miraculous character of the manna. 33. ὁἄρτοςτοῦθεοῦ = ὁἄρτοςὃνδίδωσινὁπατήρμου . The words ὁκαταβ … are the predicate of ὁἄρτος , and do not apply, in the construction of this verse, to Christ personally, however truly they apply to Him in fact. The E. V. is here wrong: it should be, The bread of God is that (not He) which cometh, &c. Not till ver. 35 does Jesus first say, ‘ I am the bread of life.’ The manna is still kept in view— ὅτανκατέβηἡδρόσος … κατέβαινεντὸμάνναἐπ ʼ αὐτῆς , Numbers 11:9. And the present participle, here used in reference to the manna, is dropped when the Lord Himself is spoken of: see vv. 38, 41, 58, and especially the distinction between ver. 50 and ver. 51 (so Lü cke, De Wette, Stier, Bengel). 34. Ch. 4:15 is exactly parallel. The Jews understand this bread, as the Samaritan woman understood the water, to be some miraculous kind of sustenance which would bestow life everlasting:— perhaps they thought of the heavenly manna, which the Rabbis speak of as prepared for the just in the future world: see quotations in Lü cke, 2:132, also Revelation 2:17. πάντοτε , emphatic:— not now only, but always. 35. As in ch. 5:30, so here, our Lord passes from the indirect to the direct form of speech. Henceforward it is ‘ I,’ ‘ Me,’ throughout the discourse. In the genitive τῆςζωῆς is implied ὁκαταβὰςἐκτοῦοὐρ . καὶζωὴνδιδοὺςτῷκόσμῳ . So ὕδωρζῶν in ch. 4. On the assurance of never hungering or thirsting, see note at ch. 4:14. It is possible that our Lord placed the all-satisfying bread of life in contrast to the manna, which was no sooner given, Exo_16, than the people began to thirst, Exo_17;— but I would not lay any stress on this. ὁἐρχόμ . πρ . ἐμέ is in the same sense as in ch. 5:40— that of acceptance of and faith in Him. 36. εἷπονὑμῖν — πότεδὲτοῦτοεἶπεναὐτοῖς ; εἰκὸςτοῦτοῥηθῆναιμὲνμὴγραφῆναιδέ . But perhaps, as Euthym. himself seems to suggest, and as Lü cke and De Wette are inclined to think, the reference may be to ch. 5:37-44, and the ὑμῖν may be said generally. Stier and others think that ver. 26 is referred to: but this is far-fetched. We have instances of reference to sayings not recorded, in ch. 10:26; 12:34. ἑωράκατέμε ] ‘ Ye have seen the true Bread from heaven, the σημεῖον greater than the manna, even Me Myself: and yet have not believed.’ 37. The whole body of believers on Christ are spoken of by Him, here and in ch. 17, as given to Him by the Father. But Bengel’ s observation is very important: “ πᾶν — vocula momentosissima, et, collatis iis quæ sequuntur, consideratu dignissima. Nam in sermonibus Jesu Christi, quod Pater ipsi dedit, id, et singulari numero et neutro genere, appellatur omne; qui ad ipsum, Filium, veniunt, ii masculino genere vel etiam plurali numero describuntur,— omnis, vel illi. Pater Filio totam quasi massam dedit, ut omnes quos dedit unum sint; id universum Filius singulatim evolvit, in exsecutione. Hinc illud in xvii. 2, ut omne quod dedisti ei, det eis vitam æ ternam.” See also 1 John 5:4. See further on πᾶνὃδίδωσίνμοιὁπατήρ , ver. 44. οὐμὴἐκβ . ἔξω does not refer here to the office of the Son of God as Judge; but is another way of expressing the grace and readiness with which He will receive all who come to Him. 38-40. His reception of men is not capricious, nor even of His own arbitrary choice; but as He came into the world to do the Father’ s will, and that will is that all who come to Him by faith shall have life, so He receives all such;— loses none of them;— and will raise them all up (here, in the fullest and blessed sense) at the last day. (ἀπολέσω again is not ‘ destroy,’ ‘ condemn,’ but lose: see ch. 12:25; 17:12. ἵναμὴἐξἐμῆςαἰτίαςἀπόληταίτις , Euthym.) Olshausen remarks, that “ in ch. 4 we had only the inexhaustible refreshing of the soul by the water of life; but this discourse goes further;— that not even death itself shall destroy the body of him who has been nourished by this bread of life” (ii. 167). ἀναστήσω refers to the only resurrection which is the completion of the man in his glorified state;— it does not set aside the ἀνάστασιςκρίσεως , but that very term is a debasement of ἀνάστασις : its true sense is only ἀνάστασιςζωῆς . Bengel has beautifully given the connexion of this last promise with what went before: “ hic finis est, ultra quem periculum nullum.” But there is much more than this in it. In this declaration (vv. 39, 40) is contained the key of the following discourse, vv. 44-59. The end of the work of God, as regards man, is the glorification of his restored and sanctified nature,— body, soul, and spirit,— in eternity. Without this,— salvation, restitution, would be incomplete. The adoption cannot be consummated without the redemption of the body. Romans 8:18-23. And the glorification of the body, soul, and spirit,— of the whole man,— cannot take place but by means of the glorified Body of the second Adam. “ He who does not see this, will never understand either the Holy Communion, or this testimony of the Lord in its inner meaning.” Stier, iv. 243, edn. 2. The θεωρῶν here is a different thing from the mere ὁρᾶν of ver. 36. It is the awakening of the attention preparatory to faith, answering to the looking on the serpent of brass: τοῖςὀφθαλμοῖςτῆςψυχῆς , Euthym.; but afterwards he makes the θεωρεῖν = πιστεύειν , to which it is only preparatory. 41. Not different hearers, nor does the scene of the discourse here change: they were the same,— perhaps the principal among them, the official superintendents of the synagogue:— for John generally uses οἱἸουδαῖοι in this official sense. 42. They rightly supposed that this καταβῆναιἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦ must imply some method of coming into the world diverse from ordinary generation. Meyer gathers from the οἴδαμεν , that our Lord’ s reputed father was then still alive. But surely the verb will bear the sense of knowing as matter of fact who they were, and need not be confined to personal knowledge. 43. Our Lord does not answer their objection, because it lay far from His present purpose to disclose aught of those mysteries which the answer must have indicated. It was not till the faith of the apostolic Christians was fully fixed on Him as the Son of God, and the outline of the doctrine of His Person was firmly sketched out, that the Spirit brought out those historical records which assure us of His supernatural conception (see Nitzsch, cited by Stier, iv. 244, edn. 2). 44. The connexion seems to be this: They were not to murmur among themselves because He had said this; for the right understanding of what He had said is only to be gained by being taught of God, by being drawn by the Father, who alone can give the desire to come to Christ, and bring a man to Him. That this ‘ drawing is not irresistible grace, is confessed even by Augustine himself, in his Tractatus on this passage. “ Si trahitur, ait aliquis, invitus venit. Si invitus venit, nec credit: si non credit, nec venit. Non enim ad Christum ambulando currimus, sed credendo; nec motu corporis sed voluntate cordis accedimus, … Noli te cogitare invitum trahi; trahitur animus et amore.” And just before; “ Intrare quisquam ecclesiam potest nolens, accedere ad altare potest nolens, accipere sacramentum potest nolens:— credere non potest, nisi volens.” He quotes, “ trahit sua quemque voluptas” (Virg. Ecl. ii. 65), to shew that the drawing is that of delight and choice, not of obligation and necessity. Calvin (?), Beza, and Lampe understand irresistible grace to be here meant: “ Falsum est et profanum, non nisi volentes trahi” (Calv., Lü cke, ii. 144 note). The Greek expositors, Cyril, Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact, take the view which I have adopted above. Chrysostom says, ὃκαὶαὐτὸοὐτὸἐφ ʼ ἡμῖνἀναίρει , ἀλλὰμᾶλλονἐμφαίνειἡμᾶςβοηθείαςδεομένους . See Article X. of the Church of England, in fine. This drawing towards Christ may be exemplified in the legal dispensation, which was to the Jews a παιδαγωγίαεἰςχριστόν . It now is being exerted on all the world,— in accordance with the Lord’ s prophecy ch. 12:32 (see note there), and His command Matthew 28:19, Matthew 28:20,— by Christian preaching and missions; but, after all, the individual will must be turned to Christ by the Father, Whose covenanted promise is, that He will so turn it in answer to prayer. “ Nondum traheris? ora ut traharis” (Augustine, ut supra). The same solemn and joyous refrain, as Meyer well calls it, follows, as in vv. 39, 40. 45. ἐντοῖςπροφ . may be a general form of citation (Mark 1:2: Acts 7:42; Acts 13:40), or may mean that the sense is found in several places of the prophets: see besides reff., Jeremiah 31:33, Jeremiah 31:34. This clearly intimates the kind of drawing meant in the last verse;— the opening the eyes of the mind by divine teaching. ἀκούσαςκ . μαθών is an expansion of διδακτός . ἔρχ . πρόςμε ] This is the final decision of the human will, acted on by the divine attraction to Christ. The beginning is, the Father draws him: the progress, he hears and learns— here is the consenting will— ‘ Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth:’ — the end, he cometh to Christ— here is the will acting on the whole man. 46. The connexion is: the mention of ἀκούσαςπαρὰτοῦπατρός might lead them to think of a personal communication from the Father to each man, and thus the necessity of the mission of the Son might be invalidated. This was the only way in which a Jew could misunderstand ver. 45; he could not dream of a seeing of the Father with bodily eyes. ὁὢνπαρὰτ . θεοῦ is Jesus Himself: see ch. 7:29. His knowledge of the Father is complete and immediate; ours, partial, and derived through Him only. 47. Our Lord now recurs to the subject of their murmurs, and gives the answer for which He has been preparing the way, repeating nearly ver. 40, and adding, 48. If so, (see ver. 47,) there is full reason for my naming Myself the Bread of Life. 49. That bread from heaven had no power to keep off death, and that, death owing to unbelief:— our Lord by thus mentioning οἱπατέρεςὑμῶν and their death, certainly hints at the similar unbelief of these Jews. And the same dubious sense of ἀποθάνῃ prevails in ver. 50. Death is regarded as being swallowed up in the glory of the resurrection, and the second death— which was hidden in the former ἀπέθανον — has over him who eats this Bread of Life, no power: nay, he is brought, even here, into a resurrection state from sin and death: see Rom_6. init. and Col_3 init. 51. ὁζῶν , ‘ containing life in itself,’ not merely supplying the waste of life with lifeless matter: see on ch. 4:13, 14. καὶὁἄρτος .… ] From this time we hear no more of ἄρτος : this figure is dropped, and the reality takes its place. Some difficult questions arise regarding the sense and reference of this saying of our Lord. (1) Does it refer to His Death? and, (2) is there any reference to the Ordinance of the Lord’ s Supper? (1) In treating this question I must at once reject all metaphorical and side-interpretations, as, that the teaching of Christ is the Bread, and to be taught by Him is feeding upon it (so Grotius, and the modern rationalists): that the divine Nature of Christ, or His sending of the Holy Spirit, or His whole life of doing good on earth, can be meant: all such have against them the plain sense of the words, which, as Stier observes, are very simple ordinary words; the only difficulty arising, when we come to enquire into their application to His own Person. The Bread of Life is Himself: and, strictly treated, when we come to enquire what, of that body, soul, and spirit, which constituted Himself, this Bread specifically is, we have His answer that it is His Flesh which He will give (for this will be the meaning, whether the words ἣνἐγὼδώσω are to be regarded as part of the text or not) on behalf of the life of the world. We are then specifically directed to His Flesh as the answer. Then, what does that Flesh import? The flesh of animals is the ordinary food of men; but not the blood. The blood, which is the life, is spilt at death, and is not in the flesh when eaten by us. Now this distinction must be carefully borne in mind. The flesh here, (see ver. 53,) and the eating of the flesh, are distinct from the blood, and the drinking of the blood. We have no generalities merely, to interpret as we please: but the terms used are precise and technical. It is then only through or after the Death of the Lord, that by any propriety of language, His Flesh could be said to be eaten. Then another distinction must be remembered: The flesh of animals which we eat is dead flesh. It is already the prey of corruption; we eat it, and die (ver. 49). But this Bread is living Bread; not dead flesh, but living Flesh. And therefore manducation by the teeth materially is not to be thought of here; but some kind of eating by which the living Flesh of the Son of God is made the living sustenance of those who partake of it. Now His Flesh and Blood were sundered by Death. Death was the shedding of His precious Blood, which He did not afterwards resume: see ch. 20:27, and Luke 24:39. His Flesh is the glorified substance of His Resurrection-Body, now at the right hand of God. It is then in His Resurrection form only that His Flesh can be eaten, and be living food for the living man. I cannot therefore see how any thing short of His Death can be here meant. By that Death, He has given His Flesh for the life of the world: not merely that they who believe on Him may, in the highest sense, have life; but that ὁκόσμος may have life. The very existence of all the created world is owing to, and held together by, that Resurrection-Body of the Lord. In Him all things are gathered together and reconciled to God: τὰπάνταἐναὐτῷσυνέστηκεν , Colossians 1:17. (2) The question whether there is here any reference to the Ordinance of the Lord’ s Supper, has been inaccurately put. When cleared of inaccuracy in terms, it will mean, Is the subject here dwelt upon, the same as that which is set forth in the ordinance of the Lord’ s Supper? And of this there can surely be no doubt. To the ordinance itself, there is here no reference; nor could there well have been any. But the spiritual verity which underlies the ordinance is one and the same with that here insisted on; and so considered, the discourse is, as generally treated, most important towards a right understanding of the ordinance. On the history of the exegesis of this passage, see Lü cke ii pp. 149-159 (3rd edn.), and Excursus ii., in his 2nd edn. (omitted in his 3rd);— also Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc. To attempt to recount the various opinions, would exceed the limits of a note in an edition of the whole Testament: for the present subject is one in which the manifold dogmatical variations of individual belief have influenced Commentators to such an extent as to render accurate classification impossible. I may roughly state, that three leading opinions may be traced: that of those who hold that no reference to the Holy Communion is intended,— among whom are Origen and Basil, of the ancients; and of the moderns, the Swiss Reformers, Zwingle and Calvin (the former however not very decidedly, see Olsh. ii. 173 note), Luther, Melanchthon. That the whole passage regards exclusively the Holy Communion,— among whom are Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, the Schoolmen, and the Roman Catholic expositors, with a few exceptions. That the subject and idea of the Holy Communion, not the ordinance is referred to: to which class belong the best modern Commentators in Germany, e.g. Lü cke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stier. Bengel’ s note to the same effect is important: “ Jesus verba sua scienter ita formavit, ut statim et semper illa quidem de spirituali fruitione sui agerent proprie; sed posthac eadem consequenter etiam in augustissimum S. Cœ næ mysterium, quum id institutum foret, convenirent. Etenim ipsam rem hoc sermone propositam in S. Cœ nam contulit; tantique hoc sacramentum est momenti, ut facile existimari possit, Jesum, ut proditionem Judæ ver. 71, et mortem suam hoc versu, ita etiam S. Cœ nam, de qua inter hæ c verba certissime secum cogitavit, uno ante anno præ dixisse, ut discipuli possent præ dictionis postea recordari. Tota hæ c de carne et sanguine J. C. oratio Passionem spectat, et cum ea S. Cœ nam. Hinc separata carnis et sanguinis mentio constanter. Nam in passione sanguis ex corpore eductus est, Agnusque mactatus.” 52. The inference conveyed in φαγεῖν , which first comes from the Jews themselves, is yet a right one. If He is the Bread, and that Bread is His Flesh, we must eat His Flesh, though not in the sense here meant by them. They contended against one another, probably some having more insight into the possibility of a spiritual meaning than others. 53. Our Lord not only ratifies their φαγεῖν , but adds to it a more wonderful thing; that they must also do that against which a prohibition might seem to have existed from Noah downwards,— drink His Blood. But observe, this Blood is not to be eaten in the Flesh, which was the forbidden thing (Genesis 9:4: Leviticus 17:10-16), in its strict literal form: but to be drunk, separate from the flesh: again presupposing death. Now as the Flesh of Christ (see above) is the Resurrection-Body which He now has, and in which all things consist: so is His Blood (“ the blood is the life.” Leviticus 17:11, Leviticus 17:14) the Life which He gave up, paid down, as the penalty for the sin of the world. By the shedding, pouring forth, of that Blood, is remission of sin. It is quite impossible that these words should, as De Wette maintains, be merely an expansion of τὴνσάρκαφαγεῖν . Even had the idea of τὸαἷμαπίνειν been one familiar to the Jews, the construction would not have allowed such an interpretation;— but new as it was, and abhorrent from their habits and law, we must regard it as specially and purposely added. But what is this eating and drinking? Clearly, not merely faith: for faith answers to the hand reached forth for the food,— but is not the act of eating. Faith is a necessary condition of the act: so that we can hardly say with Augustine, “ crede, et manducasti;” but ‘ crede et manducabis.’ Inasmuch as Faith will necessarily in its energizing lead to this partaking, we sometimes incorrectly say that it is Faith:— but for strict accuracy this is not enough. To eat the flesh of Christ, is to realize, in our inward life, the mystery of His Body now in heaven,— to digest and assimilate our own portion in that Body. To drink His Blood, is to realize, in our inward life, the mystery of His satisfaction for sin,— to digest and assimilate our own portion in that satisfaction, the outpouring of that Blood. And both these definitions may be gathered into one, which is: The eating of His Flesh and drinking of His Blood import the making to ourselves and using as objectively real, those two great Truths of our Redemption in Him, of which our Faith subjectively convinces us. And of this realizing of Faith He has been pleased to appoint certain symbols in the Holy Communion, which He has commanded to be received; to signify to us the spiritual process, and to assist us towards it. οὐκἔχ . ζωὴνἐνἑαυτ .] ‘ Ye have not in you that spring of life, which shall overcome death, and lead (ver. 54) to the resurrection in the true sense:’ see above, ver. 44, and notice again the solemn refrain. τρώγων ] It is not necessary to see any more literal ‘ eating’ in the word than in φαγών :— it expresses the present of φαγών , which must be either τρώγων or ἐσθίων ,— and the real sense conveyed is, that by the very act of inward realization, which is the ‘ manducatio,’ the possession of eternal life is certified. 55. ἀληθής is here not = ἡἀληθινή , nor is the sense, ‘ My Flesh is the true meat &c.,’ but My flesh is true meat, i.e. really to be eaten, which they doubted. Thus ἀληθῶς is a gloss, which falls short of the depth of the adjective. This verse is decisive against all explaining away or metaphorizing the passage. Food and drink are not here mere metaphors;— rather are our common material food and drink mere shadows and imperfect types of this only real reception of refreshment and nourishment into the being. 56. He who thus lives upon Me, abides in Me (see ch. 15:5 and note);— and I abide in him. Beware of imagining, as Bp. Wordsw. again (see note on Matthew 16:18), that there is any especial emphasis on μου because of its position. 57. The same expanded further— see ch. 5:26. The two branches of the feeding on Christ are now united under the general expression, τρώγωνμε . διὰ expresses the efficient cause. The Father is the Fountain of all Life: the Son lives in and by the Father: and all created being generally, lives (in the lower sense) in and by Him; but he that eateth Him shall (eternally and in the highest sense) live by Him. Ver. 58 forms the solemn conclusion of the discourse, referring back to the Bread with which it began and to its difference from the perishable food which they had extolled:— and setting forth the infinite superiority of its effects over those of that sustenance. οὗτόςἐστιν , such is. καταβάς ,— past, now: because He has clearly identified it with Himself. καθώς must = τοιοῦτος , ὅν : if ὑμῶντὸμάννα (see digest) is to stand, the construction must be filled up οὐκαθὼςτὸμ . ὃἔφ . κ .τ .λ . 60-65. Murmuring of some of the disciples at the foregoing discourse, and the answer of Jesus to them. 60. Lampe shews by reff. and other citations that σκληρός “ non tam absurditatem quam impietatem designat.” It seems clear that it was not the difficulty, so much as the strangeness of the saying, which scandalized them. It is the whole discourse,— the turn given to it,— the doctrine of the Bread of Life,— the giving His Flesh and Blood to eat,— at which they take offence. ἀκούειν , to listen to it— ‘ Who can stay and hear such sayings as this?’ not, ‘ to understand it.’ 61. ἐνἑαυτῷ , by His divine knowledge. 62. ἐὰνοὖνθεωρ ., what then, if ye see … not meaning ‘ will ye not then be much more scandalized?’ or, ‘ what will ye say (or do), then?’ — but appealing to an event which they should witness, as a certain proof of one part of the σκληρὸςλόγος , with which indeed the rest of it was bound up,— His having descended from heaven. All attempts (as those of Lü cke, De Wette, and others) to explain this otherwise than of His ascent into heaven, are simply dishonest,— and spring from laxity of belief in the historical reality of that event. That it is not recorded by John, is of no moment here: see Prolegomena. And that none but the Twelve saw it, is unimportant; for how do we know that our Lord was not here speaking to some among the Twelve? To explain it of His death, as part of His going up where He was before, is hardly less disingenuous. Lü cke maintains that θεωρεῖν need not mean bodily sight: which is true enough in some constructions in John (ch. 8:51 .); but surely, as joined with ἀναβαίνοντα , it must. The whole exegesis of the passage in the above-named Commentators is a remarkable instance of the warping of the judgment by unsoundness of belief in the historical truth of the evangelistic testimony. 63. πνεῦμα , σάρξ , do not mean the spiritual and carnal sense of the foregoing discourse, as many Commentators explain them: for our Lord is speaking, not of teaching merely, but of vivifying: He is explaining the life-giving principle of which He had been before speaking. ‘ Such eating of My flesh as you imagine and find hard to listen to, could profit you nothing,— for it will have ascended up, &c.; and besides, generally, it is only the Spirit that can vivify the spirit of man: the flesh (in whatever way used) can profit nothing towards this.’ He does not say ‘ My Flesh profiteth nothing,’ but ‘ the flesh.’ To make Him say this, as the Swiss anti-sacramentalists do, is to make Him contradict His own words in ver. 51. τὰῥήμ . ἃἐγὼλελάληκα — viz. the words μουτὴνσάρκα and μουτὸαἷμα , above. They are πνεῦμα and ζωή :— spirit, not flesh only:— living food, not carnal and perishable. This meaning has been missed by almost all Commentators: Stier upholds it, iv. 281 (2nd edn.): and it seems to me beyond question the right one. The common interpretation is, ‘ the words which I have spoken,’ i.e. ‘ My discourses,’ are πνεῦμα , ‘ to be taken in a spiritual sense,’ (? this sense of πνεῦμα ,) ‘ and are life.’ But this is any thing but precise, even after the forcing of πνεῦμα . 64. ἀλλ ʼ εἰσὶν .… ] ‘ This accounts for your murmuring at what I said, that ye do not believe.’ ᾔδειγὰρ … ] De Wette remarks, that the foreknowledge of our Lord with regard to Judas renders it impossible to apply the ordinary rules of moral treatment,— as ‘ Why did He then continue him as an Apostle? Why did He give him the charge of the purse, knowing him to be a thief? &c.,’ — to the case: and it is therefore better not to judge at all on the matter. The fact is, we come here to a form of the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free-will, which, in any of its endless combinations of expression, it is equally impossible for us to solve. ἐξἀρχῆς , from their first coming to Him;— the first beginning of their connexion with Him. 65. These unbelievers had not that drawing to Christ, which leads (ver. 44) to true coming to Him. Observe the parallelism between ᾖδεδομένοναὐτῷ here, and ὃδίδωσίνμοι , ver. 37. Both these gifts are in the Father’ s power. 66-71. Many of the disciples leave Him. The confession of the Twelve through Peter: and the Lord’ s warning to them. 66. ἐκτούτου ] upon this. The temporal meaning prevails, but does not exclude the causal. πολλοί , viz. of the μὴπιστεύοντες : but not all. 67. The first mention of the Twelve by John. The question is asked in order to extract from them the confession which follows, and thus to bind them closer to Himself. We must not forget likewise, in the mystery of our Lord’ s human nature, that at such a moment of desertion, He would seek comfort in the faith and attachment of His chosen ones. 68. Peter answers quickly and earnestly for the rest, as in Matthew 16:16. πρὸςτίνα ] What they had heard and seen had awakened in them the desire of being led on by some teacher towards eternal life; and to whom else should they go from Him who had, and brought out of His stores for their instruction, the words (see ver. 63) of eternal life? 69. πεπιστεύκαμεν seems to be used absolutely, as in ver. 64: we believe, and have long done so. In the following words the readings vary; the common text having been to all appearance introduced from Matthew 16:16. The circumstance of the Lord not being elsewhere called ὁἅγιοςτ . θεοῦ by John, is of course in favour of the reading. The idea however is found (ch. 10:36). I regard the coincidence with the testimony of the dæ moniacs, reff. Mark , as a remarkable one. Their words appear to have been the first plain declaration of the fact, and so to have laid hold on the attention of the Apostles. 70. The selection of the Twelve by Jesus is the consequence of the giving of them to Him by the Father, ch. 17:6,— in which there also Judas is included. So that His selecting, and the Father’ s giving and drawing, do not exclude final falling away. Meyer observes, that the solemn addition, τοὺςδώδεκα after ὑμᾶς , heightens the contrast to the opposite result which follows. διάβολος ] It is doubtful in what sense this word should be taken. Whether we render it διαβολικός , or ἐπίβουλος , (both given by Euthym.,) it will be an ἅπαξλεγόμενον in the N.T. Of the two however the latter is the harsher, and less analogous to N.T. diction. Certainly, in the dark act here prophesied, Judas was under the immediate instigation of and yielded himself up to Satan (cf. our Lord’ s reply to Peter, Matthew 16:23); and I would understand this expression as having reference to that league with and entertainment of the Evil One in his thoughts and purposes, which his ultimate possession by Satan implies. This meaning can perhaps hardly be rendered by any single word in another language. The E. V. ‘ a devil’ is certainly too strong; devilish would be better, but not unobjectionable. Compare ὁυἱὸςτῆςἀπωλείας ch. 17:12. 71. On the name Ἰσκαριώτης (here applied to Simon, Judas’ s father), see on Matthew 10:4. ἔμελλεν , not, ‘ intended,’ see ch. 13:2: but simply future, = ἦνὁπαραδώσωναὐτόν , see ver. 64; ch. 7:39; 11:51 al. Chap. 7-10. Jesus the light of the world. The conflict at its height. 7:1-52. Jesus meets the unbelief of the Jews at Jerusalem. The circumstances (vv. 1-13). 1. The chronology of this period is very doubtful. I have remarked on it in my note on Luke 9:51. Thus much we may observe here, that μετὰταῦτα cannot apply emphatically to ch. 6, but must be referred back to ch. 5, as indeed must the Jews seeking to kill Him, and the miracle alluded to in ver. 23. But it will not follow from this, that ch. 6 is not in its right place: it contains an independent memoir of a miracle and discourse of our Lord in Galilee which actually happened in the interval, and only serves to shew us the character of this Gospel as made up of such memoirs, more or less connected with one another, and selected by the Evangelist for their higher spiritual import, and the discourses arising from them. I would understand this verse as merely carrying on the time from ch. 5 and ch. 6,— and its contents as introductory to the account of Jesus not going up at first to the feast. Ch. 6 is in some measure presupposed in our ver. 3, as indicating that He had not constantly observed the festal journeys of late. 2. See Deuteronomy 16:13-17. Josephus, Antt. viii. 4. 1, calls this ἑορτὴἁγιωτάτηκαὶμεγίστη . It began on the 15th (evening of 14th) of Tisri [Sept. 28], and lasted till the evening of the 22nd [Oct. 6]. 3-5. Respecting the brethren of the Lord, see note on Matthew 13:55. They seem to have had at this time a kind of belief in the Messianic character of Jesus, but of the very lowest sort, not excluding the harsh and scoffing spirit visible in these words. They recognized his miracles, but despised his apparent want of prudence and consistency of purpose, in not shewing himself to the world. In the ἵνακαὶοἱμαθ . σουκ .τ .λ . there is perhaps a reference to the desertion of many of his disciples just before. Nay, more than this: the indication furnished by this verse of the practice of our Lord with regard to His miracles up to this point is very curious. He appears as yet to have made His circuits in Galilee, and to have wrought miracles there, in the presence of but a small circle of disciples properly so called: and there would seem to have been a larger number of disciples, in the wider sense, in Judæ a, or to be gathered in Judæ a by the feast, who yet wanted assuring, by open display, of the reality of His wonderful works. In ver. 5 (as well as by οἱμαθηταίσου , ver. 3), we have these brethren absolutely excluded from the number of the Twelve (see ch. 6:69); and it is impossible to modify the meaning of ἐπίστευον so as to suppose that they may have been of the Twelve, but not believers in the highest sense. This verse also excludes all of His brethren: it is inconceivable that John should have so written, if any among them believed at that time. The attempt to make the words mean, that some of his brethren did not believe on him, is in my view quite futile. In that case we should certainly have had some such expression as ἦσανγὰρκαὶἐκτῶνἀδελφῶναὐτοῦ , οἳοὐκἐπίστευονεἰςαὐτόν . No such attempt would ever have been made by a Greek scholar,— except for the fiction which has been so long, and, strange to say, is still upheld with regard to our Lord’ s brethren. The emphatic expression, οὐδὲγὰροἱἀδ ., is a strong corroboration of the view that they were really and literally brethren: see also Psalms 69:8. 6-9. ὁκαιρ . ὁἐμ . can hardly be taken as directly meaning ‘ the time of my sufferings and death,’ — but as ἡὥραμου in ch. 2:4: ‘ My time for the matter of which you speak, viz. manifestation to the world.’ That (ch. 12:32) was to take place in a very different manner. But they, having no definite end before them, no glory of God to shew forth, but being of the world, always had their opportunity ready of mingling with and standing well with the world. Then (ver. 7), ‘ you have no hatred of the world in your way: but its hatred to Me on account of my testimony against it, causes me to exercise this caution which you so blame.’ In ver. 8, it is of little import (see var. readd.) whether we read οὐκ or οὔπω : the sense will be the same, both on account of the present, ἀναβαίνω (not ἀναβήσομαι , which would express the disavowal of an intention to go up), and of οὔπω afterwards. οὐκἀναβ . would mean, I am not (at present) going up. Meyer attributes to our Lord change of purpose, and justifies his view by the example of His treatment of the Syrophœ nician woman, whom He at first repulsed, but afterwards had compassion on. Matthew 15:26 ff. The same Commentator directs attention to the emphatic ταύτην , as implying that our Lord had it in His mind to go up to some future feasts, but not to this one. οὔπωπεπλήρ ., is not yet fully come: see Luke 9:51 and note. 10. οὐφαν ., i.e. not in the usual caravan-company, nor probably by the usual way. Whether the Twelve were with Him, we have no means of judging: probably so, for they appear ch. 9:2; and after their becoming once attached to the Person of our Lord as Apostles, we find no trace of his having been for any long time separated from them, except during their mission Mat_10, which was long ago accomplished. 11. These Ἰουδ . are, as usual, the ἄρχοντες , as distinguished from the multitudes. Their question itself shews a hostile spirit. 12. οἱὄχλ . (the different groups of which ὁὄχλος was composed) would include the Galilæ an disciples, and those who had been baptized by the disciples in Judæ a,— whose view ἀγαθόςἐστιν would represent,— as expressed mildly in protest against His enemies. πλανᾷτὸνὄχλον , possibly in reference to the feeding of and then the discourse to the multitude, which had given so much offence. 13. παῤῥ .] This was true only of the side who said ἀγαθόςἐστιν : they dared not speak their mind: the others spoke plainly enough. Here again οἱἸουδ . are distinguished from the ὄχλοι . 14-39. Jesus testifies to Himself in the Temple. 15-24. His teaching is from the Father. 14, 15. τ . ἑορ . μεσ ., about the middle of the feast. Probably on a sabbath (see Wieseler, Chron. i. 309). It appears to have been the first time that He ἐδίδασκεν publicly at Jerusalem;— whence the wonder of the Jews, i.e. the rulers of the hierarchy. γράμματα — generally letters; but also particularly, scripture-learning— perhaps because this was all the literature of the Jews: see reff. Probably His teaching consisted in exposition of the Scripture. μὴμεμ ., never having been the scholar of any Rabbi. He was θεοδίδακτος . These words are spoken in the true bigotry and prejudice of so-called ‘ learning.’ These words of His enemies, testifying to matter of fact well known to them, are, as Meyer observes, decisive against all attempts of unbelievers to attribute our Lord’ s knowledge to education in any human school of learning. Such indications are not without their value in these times. 16. Here only does our Lord call His teaching διδαχή , as being now among the διδάσκαλοι , the Rabbis, in the temple. It is often so called by the Evangelists, see reff. The words may bear two meanings:— either, ‘ the sense of Scripture which I teach is not my own, but that in which it was originally penned as a revelation from God;’ or, My teaching (generally) is not mine, but that of Him who sent me. The latter is preferable, as agreeing better with what follows, and because the former assumes that He was expounding Scripture, which, though probable, is not asserted. 17. θέλειντὸθέλ . αὐτ . ποιεῖν is equivalent to τὴνἀγάπηντοῦθεοῦἔχεινἐνἑαυτοῖς , ch. 5:42. The θέλειν should not have been slurred over in the E. V., for it is important. If any man’ s will be, to do His will, &c. As it now stands in the E. V., a wrong idea is conveyed: that the bare performance of God’ s outward commands will give a man sufficient acquaintance with Christian doctrine:— whereas what our Lord asserts to the Jews is, that if the will be set in His ways, if a man be really anxious to do the will of God, and thus to fulfil this first great commandment of the law,— be, as Meyer expresses it, in ethical harmony with God,— the singleness of purpose, and subjection to the will of God, will lead him on to faith in the promised and then apparent Messiah, and to a just discrimination of the divine character of his teaching. 18. This gives us the reason why he, who wishes to do God’ s will, will know of the teaching of Christ: viz. because both are seeking one aim— the glory of God:— and the humility of him, whose will it is to do God’ s will, can best appreciate that more perfect humility of the divine Son, who speaks not of himself, but of Him that sent him,— see ch. 5:41-44, of which this verse is a repetition with a somewhat different bearing. In its general sense, it asserts that self exaltation and self-seeking necessarily accompany the unaided teaching of man, but that all true teaching is from God. But then we must remember that, simply taken, the latter part of the sentence is only true of the Holy One Himself; that owing to human infirmity, purity of motive is no sure guarantee for correctness of doctrine;— and therefore in this second part it is not τοῦθεοῦ , which would generalize it to all men, but τοῦπέμψ . αὐτόν , which confines it to Himself. 19. There is a close connexion with the foregoing. Our Lord now takes the offensive against them. The θέλειντὸθέλημααὐτοῦποιεῖν was to be the great key to a true appreciation of His teaching: but of this there was no example among them: and therefore it was that they were no fair judges of the teaching, but bitter opponents and persecutors of Jesus, of whom, had they been anxious to fulfil the law, they would have been earnest and humble disciples (ch. 5:46). The law was to be read before all Israel every seventh year in the feast of tabernacles (Deuteronomy 31:10-13):— whether this was such a year is uncertain: but this verse may allude to the practice, even if it was not. ζητεῖτεἀποκτ .] In their killing the Lord of Life was summed up all their transgression of God’ s law. It was the greatest proof of their total ignorance of and disobedience to it. 20. The multitude, not the rulers, replied this. Indeed their question, τίςσεζητεῖἀποκτεῖναι ; shews their ignorance of the purpose of their rulers, which our Lord had just exposed and charged them with. It would not now be their policy to represent Him as possessed. 21. The one work was the sabbath-healing in ch. 5. 22. διὰτοῦτο is variously placed; either at the end of ver. 21, so as to come after θαυμάζετε , (Cod. , lat. q, Theophyl., Beza, and many of the moderns, Lü cke, De Wette, Stier, Lachmann, &c.,)— or at the beginning of this verse (Codd. , , , , , , , Δ , Λ , [, , Γ , Π ,] ., the syriac versions, ., ., , Chrys., Cyril, Grotius, &c.). I prefer the latter arrangement: because (1) I believe τοῦτο would not be used in the sense required by the other, but αὐτό (nor can I see that the ἓνἔργον makes the τοῦτο any more applicable (see Stier, edn. 2, iv. 315); nay, it seems to me to take the attention off from the particular work done, and fix it on the mere ἓνἔργ . ποιῆσαι , abstractedly— ‘ Ye wonder that I have acted at all’ ): and (2) because I find διὰτοῦτο joined with ὅτι to be a usual mode of speaking with our Evangelist, see ch. 5:16, 18; 8:47 (θαυμάζεινδιάτι is used Mark 6:6: Revelation 17:7: see also John 3:29). (3) I see an appropriateness of meaning in ver. 22 with the διὰτοῦτο , which it has not without it. Moses on this account gave you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers; (the repetition of ἐκτ . Μωυ . ἐστ . does not necessarily imply a parenthesis: John constantly uses these formal repetitions: this in answer to Stier, iv. 315, edn. 2)— i.e. it is no part of the law of Moses, properly so called,— but was adopted by Moses, and thereby becomes part of his law. The meaning of οὐχὅτι , ‘ not that,’ implying ‘ I mean not, that,’ does not seem to suit the context so well, because it would leave the preceding διὰτοῦτο without any thing to refer to. Now you circumcise on the Sabbath, to avoid breaking the law of Moses, &c. If our Lord had said these last words (in ver. 23) merely, the argument would not have been strict: they might have answered, that circumcision was not only a command of the law, but anterior to it: whereas ver. 22 takes this answer from them; reminding them that though they regarded its sanction as derived from Moses, it was in fact older,— and tacitly approving their doing it on the Sabbath. Then the argument is, If this may be done on the Sabbath:— if an ordinance strictly Mosaic (which the Sabbath in its Jewish mode of observance was) may be set aside by another, Mosaic also, but more ancient, and borrowed from a more general and direct command of God (“ circumcisio est antiquior rigido otio sabbati per Mosen imperato” — Grotius), how much more may it by a deed of mercy, a benevolent exercise of divine power, the approval of which is anterior to and deeper than all ceremonial enactment? 23. ἵναμὴλυθῇ — not,— “ ita ut non solvatur” — “ salva lege;” which is ungrammatical;— but in order that the Law of Moses may not be broken, viz. that which (after the fathers) ordains circumcision on the eighth day. ὅλονἄνθρ .] The distinction is between circumcision, which purified only part of a man, by which he received ceremonial cleanness,— and that perfect and entire healing which the Lord bestowed on the cripple. Stier (after Bengel) thinks the ὅλον refers to body and soul,— see ch. 5:14,— whose healing is a much greater benefit than circumcision, even viewed as a sacrament: “ nam circumcisio est medium, sanatio animæ finis.” But this is perhaps too subtle. The Jews could not have appreciated this meaning, and the argument is especially addressed to them. Besides, it is by no means certain from that passage that such was the case. 24. No stress must be laid on the article with κρίνετε : it is merely expressive of habit,— Let your judgment be a just one. κρίνετε implies habit— in all your judgments: whereas the aorist (see var. readd.) would enjoin right judgment on the present occasion, directing the attention on what had just happened. 25-31. He Himself is from the Father. 25, 26. The inhabitants of Jerusalem know better than the ὄχλος the mind of their rulers towards Jesus; and suspect some change in their purpose, on account of His being thus permitted to teach freely. 27. Perhaps they refer to the idea (see Justin Mart., Dial. c. Tryph. 8, 110, pp. 110, 203) that the Messiah would not be known until anointed by Elias, when He would suddenly come forth from obscurity. They may allude to Isaiah 53:8. The place of the Messiah’ s birth was known, ver. 42. At all events we see here, that the Jews regarded their Messiah not as a mere man, but one to be supernaturally sent into the world. 28, 29. ἔκραξεν ,— in the same open undisguised manner referred to in παῤῥησέᾳλαλεῖ above; but διδάσκων , in the course of His teaching. κἀμὲοἴδατε .… ] It has been questioned whether these words are to be taken ironically, interrogatively, or affirmatively. I incline to the last view, for this reason:— obviously no very high degree of knowledge whence He was is implied, for they knew not Him that sent Him (see also ch. 8:14, 19), and therefore could not know whence He was, in this sense. The answer is made in their own sense:— they knew that He was from Nazareth in Galilee, see ver. 41,— and probably that He was called the son of Joseph. In this sense they knew whence He was; but further than this they knew not. καὶἀπ ʼ ἐμ … and moreover— and besides this— not = but. The sense of ἀληθινός must be gathered from the context. I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is ἀληθινός — ye know Him not; I know Him,— for I came from Him, and He sent Me. The matter here impressed on them is the genuineness, the reality of the fact:— that Jesus was sent, and there was one who sent Him, though they knew Him not, and consequently knew not πόθενἐστίν . The nearest English word would be real: but this would not convey the meaning perspicuously to the ordinary mind;— perhaps the E. V. true is better, provided it be explained to mean objectively, not subjectively, true: really existent, not ‘ truthful,’ which it may be questioned whether the word ἀληθινός will bear, although it is so maintained by Euthym., Cyril, Chrys., Theophylact, Lampe, Baumgarten-Crusius, Tholuck, and many others. See on this, ch. 8:16 and note. With the δέ of the . omitted the sense becomes more emphatic. It was probably inserted on account of the apparent want of connexion, as has been the case very frequently throughout the Gospel. We have here an instance of a usage of ἐκεῖνος which is very common in St. John, as emphasizing the main subject, not (as more commonly) diverting the attention to one more removed. In ignorance of this usage, Hilgenfeld, “ Die Evangelia nach ihrer Entstehung, u. s. w.,” has argued from ch. 19:35, that the writer of this Gospel cannot himself have been an eye-witness of the crucifixion, because he there distinguishes that witness by ἐκεῖνος from himself. In consequence of this assertion, an article appeared in the Stud. u. Kritik. for 1859, pt. 3, by G. E. Steiss, in which the use of ἐκεῖνος by St. John is gone into, and Hilgenfeld’ s mistake (which Kö stlin had committed before him) was exposed. Referring to that article for the full treatment of the subject, I merely cite from among many other instances of the usage, ch. 1:18, 33; 5:11; 6:57; 10:1; 12:48; 14:12, 21, 26; 17:24. 30. Namely, the rulers,— instigated by what had been above remarked by the people, vv. 25, 26. There was some secondary hindrance to their laying hands on Him,— possibly the fear of the people: but the Evangelist passes at once to the real cause;— that God’ s appointed time was not yet come. 31. The δέ here contrasts with what went before— nay, many &c. The indefiniteness of ὅτανἔλθῃ implies their belief that the Christ had come. 32-36. He will return to the Father. 32. The wavering of the multitude appears to the Pharisees a dangerous sign: and the Sanhedrim (οἱἀρχ . κ . οἱΦ .) send officers specially to lay hold on Him. 33, 34. The omission or insertion of αὐτοῖς makes very little difference. The words were spoken, not to the officers only, but to all the people. ἔτιχρ . μικ … ] This appears to be said in reference to ver. 30, to shew them the uselessness of their attempting to lay hands on Him till His hour was come, which it soon would be. πρὸςτ . πέμψ . με ] It has been asked, ‘ If Jesus thus specified where He was going, how could the Jews ask the question in ver. 35?’ but De Wette answers well, that the Jews knew not τὸνπέμψαντααὐτόν , and therefore the saying was a dark one to them. ζητ . με , κ . οὐχεὑρ .] These words must not be pressed too much, as has been done by many interpreters (Chrysost., Theophyl., Euthym., Meyer, Tholuck, but not in his 6th edn.), who would make them mean, ‘ Ye shall seek My help and not find it’ (viz. in your need, at the destruction of Jerusalem); for this would not be true even of the Jews, any one of whom might have at any time turned and looked on Him whom he had pierced, by faith,— and have been saved;— nor again must it be taken as meaning, ‘ Ye shall seek to lay hands on Me, and shall not be able’ (, Grot.),— which is vapid and unmeaning. Neither of these interpretations, nor their cognates, will agree with the parallel place, ch. 13:33, where the same words are used to the disciples. The meaning is simply (as in reff.), ‘ My bodily presence will be withdrawn from you; I shall be personally in a place inaccessible to you:’ see ch. 13:36. εἰμί , am; not εἶμι , ‘ go,’ which is never used in the N.T. Nor need we supply τότε ; the present tense is used in the solemn sense of ch. 1:18, and ch. 3:13, to signify essential truth. Compare οὐδύνασθε addressed to the Jews, with οὐδύνασαίμοινῦνἀκολ ., ἀκολουθήσειςδὲὕστερον to Peter, ch. 13:36, and it will be evident that the Lord had their spiritual state in view: ‘ Ye cannot, as ye are now, enter there.’ On the whole, see Luke 17:22. 35, 36. The Jews understood not his death to be meant, but some journey which he would take in the event of their rejecting him. The διασπ . τ . Ἑλλ . must not be interpreted ‘ the Hellenistic Jews,’ for the Ἕλληνες are always distinguished from the Jews; and this would convey hardly any meaning. The sense of διασπορά is,— see reff. James, 1 Pet.,— ‘ the country where Jews lay scattered,’ as qualified by the succeeding genitive, where one occurs, as here. So here ἡδ . τ . Ἑλ . means ‘ the dispersed in the Gentile world;’ — and their intent is, to convey contempt and mockery. They do not however believe the hypothesis; but ask again, τίςἐστινὁλόγοςοὗτος ; 37-52. Jesus the giver of the Spirit (37-39). Consequences of the discourse (40-52). 37, 38. It is not certain what is meant by this ἡἐσχ . ἡμ . ἡμεγ . The command, Leviticus 23:34, Leviticus 23:35, was to keep the feast seven days; the first to be a solemn assembly and a feast-sabbath,— then on the eighth day another solemn assembly and a feast-sabbath:— so also ib. ver. 39. (But in Deuteronomy 16:13 nothing is said of the eighth day.) In Nehemiah 8:18 the feast is kept seven days, and on the eighth is a solemn assembly, “ according unto the manner.” In Numbers 29:12-38, where minute directions are given for every day of the feast, the eighth day is reckoned in, as usual. Josephus, Antt. iii. 10. 4, gives a similar account. In 2 Macc. 10:6, we read ἡμέραςὀκτώ , σκηνωμάτωντρόπον . But the eighth day was not properly one of the feast days; the people ceased to dwell in the tabernacles on the seventh day. Philo says of it, ἑπτὰδὲἡμέραιςὀγδόηνἐπισφραγίζεται , καλέσαςἐξόδιοναὐτήν , οὐκἐκείνηςὡςἔοικεμόνοντῆςἑορτῆς , ἀλλὰπασῶντῶνἐτησίωνὅσαςκαθηριθμήσαμεν · τελευταίαγὰρἐστιτοῦἐνιαυτοῦ . De Septenario, § 24. And though this, as Lü cke observes (ii. 224), may be pure conjecture, it is valuable, as shewing the fact the reason of which is conjectured; viz. that the eighth day was held in more than ordinary estimation. The eighth day then seems here to be meant, and the last of the feast to be popularly used, as in some of the citations above. But a difficulty attends this view. Our Lord certainly seems to allude here to the custom which prevailed during the seven days of the feast, of a priest bringing water in a golden vessel from the pool of Siloam with a jubilant procession to the temple, standing on the altar and pouring it out there, together with wine, while meantime the Hallel (Ps. 113-118.) was sung. This practice was by some supposed— as the dwelling in tabernacles represented their life in the desert of old— to refer to the striking of the rock by Moses:— by others, to the rain, for which they then prayed, for the seed of the ensuing year:— by the elder Rabbis (Maimonides, cited by Stier, iv. 331, edn. 2), to Isaiah 12:3, and the effusion of the Holy Spirit in the days of the Messiah. But it was universally agreed (with the single exception of the testimony of R. Juda Hakkadosh, quoted in the tract Succa, which itself distinctly asserts the contrary), that on the eighth day this ceremony did not take place. Now, out of this difficulty I would extract what I believe to be the right interpretation. It was the eighth day, and the pouring of water did not take place. But is therefore (as Lü cke will have it) all allusion to the ceremony excluded? I think not: nay, I believe it is the more natural. For seven days the ceremony had been performed, and the Hallel sung. On the eighth day the Hallel was sung, but the outpouring of the water did not take place: “ desideraverunt aliquid.” ‘ Then Jesus stood and cried, &c.’ Was not this the most natural time? Was it not probable that He would have said it at such a time, rather even than while the ceremony itself was going on? An attempt has been made to alter the punctuation thus: ἐάντιςδιψᾷ , ἐρχέσθωπρόςμε , καὶπινέτωὁπιστεύωνεἰςἐμέ · καθὼςεἶπενἡγρ ., ποταμοὶκ .τ .λ . Of this I can only say, that it is surprising to me how any one accustomed to the style of our Evangelist can for a moment suppose it possible. The harshness of καὶπινέτωὁπ . εἰςἐμέ is beyond all example. The ordinary punctuation, making ὁπισ . εἰςἐμέ a nom. abs., see ch. 6:39, is the only admissible one,— even were it beset with far greater difficulties than it is. (The punctuation above mentioned is strongly upheld against this note in Stier, edn. 2. In spite of what he there says, I cannot think it can ever make way among Biblical scholars. It introduces two subjects into the first part of the sentence, viz. ὁδιψῶν and ὁπιστεύωνεἰςἐμέ , to the utter confusion of both sense and metaphor. The distinction, insisted on by Stier, between the believer on Christ, who was not only to come, but to drink,— and the people at the feast, who only witnessed the outpouring of the water,— and which he gives as a reason why πινέτω must stand emphatically before ὁπιστ . its qualifying subject, will be quite as marked with the usual punctuation: nay even more so.) On the first clauses, see notes on ch. 4:13, 14. καθὼςεἶπ . ἡγρ .] These words must apply to ποταμοὶἐκτ . κ .… , since ὁπιστ . εἰςἐμέ could not form part of the citation. But we look in vain for such a text in the O.T., and an apocryphal or lost canonical book is out of the question. I believe the citation to be intimately connected with the ceremony referred to, and that we must look for its place by consulting the passages where the flowing out of water from the temple (see above) is spoken of. The most remarkable of these is found in Ezekiel 47:1-12. There a ποταμός of water of life (see ver. 9 especially) flows from under the threshold of the temple. Again in Zechariah 14:8, ἐξελεύσεταιὕδωρζῶνἐξἹερουσαλήμ . I believe these expressions to be all to which the citation applies, and the ἐκτῆςκοιλίαςαὐτοῦ to be the interpretation of the corresponding words in the prophecies. For the temple was symbolic (see ch. 2:21) of the Body of the Lord; and the Spirit which dwells in and flows forth from His glorified Body, dwells in and flows forth from His people also, who are made like unto Him, Galatians 4:6: Romans 8:9-11 Co 3:161 Co 3:16. 39. The difficulties raised concerning this interpretation of the saying of our Lord have arisen from a misapprehension. 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. And the symbolism of the N.T. is fully satisfied by the interpretation. Granted that the water is the water of life— what is that life but the life of the Spirit? τὸφρόνηματοῦπνεύμ ., ζωή , Romans 8:6; and again, τὸπνεῦμα , ζωή , ib. ver. 10. It is lamentable to see such able and generally right-minded Commentators as Lü cke carping at the interpretation of an Apostle, and the one Apostle who perhaps of all men living had the deepest insight into the wonderful analogies of spiritual things. οὔπωἦν ] The additions δεδομένον , δοθέν , ἐπ ʼ αὐτοῖς , are all glosses, to avoid a misunderstanding which no intelligent reader could fall into. in loc. quotes the verse thus: ὁεὐαγγελιστὴςἔλεγεν , Οὔπωγὰρἦνπνεῦμαἅγιον , τουτέστιδοθέν , ἐπεὶἸησοῦςοὔπωἐδοξάσθη · δόξανκαλῶντὸνσταυρόν . It is obvious that ἦν cannot refer to the essential existence of the Holy Spirit, as this would be not only in flat contradiction to ch. 1:32, 33; 3:5, 8, 34, but to the whole O.T., in which the agency of the Spirit in the outward world is recognized even more vividly than in the N.T. The ἦν implies not exactly δεδομένον , but rather ἐνεργοῦν , or some similar word: was not,— had not come in; ‘ the dispensation of the Spirit was not yet.’ ἐδοξάσθη , through death. The glorified Body of the Lord is the temple from under whose threshold the Holy Spirit flows forth to us: see ch. 1:16: Romans 8:11: Colossians 2:9. 40. ὁπροφήτης is here clearly distinguished from ὁχριστός : see note on ch. 1:21, and Deuteronomy 18:15. 41-43. The mention of the question about Bethlehem seems to me rather to corroborate our belief that the Evangelist was well aware how the fact stood, than (De Wette) to imply that he was ignorant of it. That no more remarks are appended, is natural. John had one great design in writing his Gospel, and does not allow it to be interfered with by explanations of matters otherwise known. Besides, we may note that De Wette’ s “ probability, that John knew nothing of the birth at Bethlehem,” reaches much further than may appear at first. If John knew nothing of it, and yet the mother of the Lord lived with him, the inference must be that she knew nothing of it,— in other words, that it never happened. σχίσμα implies a violent dissension,— some taking up His cause, some wishing to lay hands on Him. 44. These were from among the multitude. Those who wished to lay hands on Him were, as Euthymius remarks, invisibly restrained. 45-52. Return of the officers to the Sanhedrim; consultation on their report. Either these officers had been watching Jesus for some days, or the present section goes back a little from what has preceded. The latter is more probable. 49. There is no intention to pronounce a formal ban upon the followers of Jesus;— the words are merely a passionate expression of contempt. The putting a stop at νόμον , and supplying ἐπίστευσενεἰςαὐτόν , and then making ἐπάρ . εἰσιν ! an exclamation (Paulus, Kuinoel), is not to be thought of. 50. The Jews had, since the sabbath-healing, condemned Jesus, and were seeking to kill him. But in Exodus 23:1, Exodus 23:2: Deuteronomy 1:16, Deuteronomy 1:17, justice is commanded to be done in the way here insisted on by Nicodemus. On the consistency, and development, of the character of Nicodemus, Luthardt has some valuable remarks, pp. 125 ff. [see on ch. 19:39]. 51. There is no need of supplying κριτής before ἀκούσῃ and γνῷ — the judge is implied in ὁνόμος . He is only its representative and mouthpiece. ἐὰνμὴἀκ .] See Deuteronomy 1:16. 52. They taunt him with being disposed to join those (mostly Galilæ ans) who had attached themselves to Jesus. Whether we read ἐγείρεται or ἐγήγερται , the assertion is much the same: for προφ . cannot mean the Prophet, or the Messiah. It was not historically true;— for two Prophets at least had arisen from Galilee: Jonah of Gathhepher, and the greatest of the Prophets, Elijah of Thisbe; and perhaps also Nahum and Hosea. Their contempt for Galilee made them lose sight of historical accuracy. (Bretschneider absurdly lays the inaccuracy to the charge of the Evangelist.) HISTORY OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN [53— Chap. 8:11. The history of the woman taken in adultery.— See var. readd.; and a very complete discussion of the authorities for and against the passage in Lü cke (edn. 3), ii. 243-256. The critical examination of the genuineness of this passage is attended with many and complicated difficulties. Setting aside here purely diplomatic evidence (for which see var. readd.), we may observe (1) that at first sight, the reasons given by and Nicon seem enough to warrant the inference that it was expunged on account of the supposed licence given by it to sin. And this has been the hypothesis generally adopted by those who would override critical difficulties by strong autocratic assertion. Even Stier and Ebrard decide thus, without pausing to examine the real complications of the question. But (2) granting that such an hypothesis might be admissible as regards ch. 8:3-11, I do not see how the whole passage can be involved in it, especially the opening verse 53, which would naturally appear to form a sequel to what has preceded, and would surely never have been expunged with the offensive paragraph. (3) No such hypothesis as this will account for the coexistence of so many distinct and independent texts, apparently none of which owes its origin to any attempt to remove matter of offence. This phæ nomenon (not that of the abundance of various readings, from which it is totally distinct) points undoubtedly to some inherent defect in the text of the passage itself, irrespective of all treatment subsequent to its establishment as a part of the sacred narrative. (4) At the same time it is an embarrassing circumstance, that the contents of the passage are of such a kind, as to give every countenance to the supposition above dealt with. Had they been otherwise, we should have been much more free in pronouncing a critical decision for or against it. (5) Another difficulty is presented by the very general concurrence of the MSS. containing the passage, in placing it here. If it was not originally found in the text, why should this place, of all others, have been selected for its insertion? It has no connexion with the context: belongs, apparently, to another portion of our Lord’ s ministry: what could induce the interpolators to place it here? (6) Nor are we helped much by its variations of position in some mss. The end of Luk_21. seems most to approve itself as the fitting place. but if it was the original one, it is totally inexplicable that we should find no trace of the fact there, except in four of the (best) cursive mss. Its occurrence here then, seems to me much in its favour. (7) After all, the most weighty argument against the passage is found in its entire diversity from. the style of narrative of our Evangelist. It is not merely that many words and idioms occur which John never uses, but that the whole cast and character of the passage is alien from his manner, in whichever of the existing texts we read it. (It would be hardly worth while to cite an opinion which affirms that “ such a course of argument is very fallacious, leads to nothing but endless logomachies, and can never settle a question of this kind” (Bloomf. edn. 9),— were it not earnestly to remind my readers, that the more the sacred text is really studied, the more such considerations, duly and cautiously weighed, will be urged and appreciated.) (8) Balancing all these difficulties, I am almost disposed, as a desperate resource, to adopt the following hypothesis; not as by any means satisfying or even recommending itself to me, but as really the only one which seems at all to shew us a way out of the æ nigma: That the Evangelist may have, in this solitary case, incorporated a portion of the current oral tradition into his narrative: that this portion may have been afterwards variously corrected, from the Gospel of the Hebrews, or other traditional sources: that being seen in early times to be alien from John’ s diction, it may have been by some replaced in the synoptic narrative, in its apparent chronological place, at Luk_21 fin.: or inserted variously in this Gospel from the mere fact of having dropped out here. Then again the contents of the passage would operate with the above causes to its exclusion altogether from many mss.: and the fact of some excluding only ch. 8:3-11, seems certainly to shew that the moral element did operate in the matter. (9) Dropping all idea of the hypothesis just suggested, our conclusion on the data must I think be, to retain the passage, as we retain Mark 16:9 ff., with a distinction from the rest of the text. With regard to the question, what text of the passage itself to adopt, it would seem idle to attempt to unite into one by critical processes texts which seem to be due to different sources. Our solution of the question must be merely formal and diplomatic. And, thus solving it, it has been thought best in this Edition to give the text as it is found in the only one of our most ancient mss. which contains it: the amount and nature of the variations being fully seen in the accompanying Digest. In adopting this plan, it will be observed that no judgment whatever is given on the purity of the text thus adopted,— no approval whatever of the Codex Bezæ as a fons lectionum: our proceeding is simply a formal and objective one, adopted as a necessity where no other seemed even moderately satisfactory. 53. The circumstance that this verse is included in the dubious passage is remarkable, and seems to shew, as remarked above, that the doubt has not arisen from the ethical difficulty, as Aug. hints (var. readd.),— for then the passage would have begun with ch. 8:1. Nor can this verse have been expunged to keep up the connexion with ch. 8:12— for that is just as good with it,— if understood, as usually, of the members of the Sanhedrim. We must now regard it as fragmentary, forming the beginning of the account of the woman taken in adultery. It is therefore not clear to what the words apply. Taken in conjunction with what follows (see on ch. 8:5), I should say that they indicate some time during the last days of the Lord’ s ministry, when He spent the nights on the Mount of Olives, as the date of the occurrence. Certainly the end of Luk_21. seems to be its fitter place. Chap. 8:1. John never elsewhere mentions the Mount of Olives (not even in ch. 18:1): and when he introduces a new place, it is his habit to give explanations (see ch. 1:45; 5:2, and λεγομένην ch. 4:5; 19:13, 17). (Stier, who says (iv. 348, edn. 2), “ The simple answer to Alford’ s remark is, that John here, and here only, mentions the Mt. of Olives,” omits all allusion to this habit of the Evangelist, which alone gives weight to my remark.) πορεύομαι with εἰς is not found elsewhere in John; but (in the Gospels) only in Matt. and Luke, and the frag. Mar_16. fin. Nor is ὄρθρον , nor παραγίνομαιεἰς nor ὁλαός in this sense, but always ὁὄχλος (see ὁλαός ch. 11:50; 18:14): nor such an expression as καθίσαςἐδίδασκεναὐτούς (v. r.):— but all these are found in Luke. It is not in John’ s manner to relate that Jesus taught them, without relating what He taught. 3. John does not usually connect with δέ , more commonly with οὖν : but δέ is found thus used here, vv. 1, 2, 3, (5, where the conjunction of δὲ … δέ is not in St. John’ s manner, see Galatians 2:20,) 6 (twice v. r.), 7, 9, 10, 11 (twice v. r.). Thence, there is not one δέ of mere connexion (ver. 35 is no exception) through the remaining forty-eight verses of the chapter. Nor does he ever mention οἱγραμματεῖς elsewhere, but usually calls the opponents of Jesus οἱἸουδαῖοι , or οἱἄρχοντες . οἱγρ . κ . οἱΦ . is a very common expression in the synoptic narrative. The account gives no light as to the capacity in which these Scribes and Pharisees acted when they brought the woman. Probably, only as tempting Jesus, and not in the course of any legal proceedings against her. Such would have required (Leviticus 20:10: Deuteronomy 22:22) that the man also should have been put to death. 4. The λέγουσιναὐτῷἐκπειράζοντεςαὐτόν savours much more of the synoptic Gospels than of John: see Matthew 16:1; Matthew 19:3; Matthew 22:18, Matthew 22:35: Mark 8:11; Mark 10:2; Mark 12:15, &c. Obviously our ch. 6:6 is no example to the contrary. (So Luthardt.) The difficulty is even greater than the last, to say, in what sense this was a temptation, to lead to His accusation. The principal solutions of it have been, (1) that the command of the law had fallen into disuse from the frequency of the crime, and to re-assert it would be contrary to the known mildness of Jesus (Michaelis (first part), , ). But what reason had any of His sayings,— who came to fulfil the Law, not to destroy it,— given them to expect such mildness in this case? And suppose He had re-asserted the law,— how could they have accused Him? (2) That some political snare was hereby laid for Him, whereby the Roman power might have been brought to bear against Him (Grotius and others). But this does not in any way appear; for the Romans certainly allowed to the Jews (by connivance) the power of putting to death according to their law,— as they did in the case of Stephen: our Lord’ s answer need not have been so worded as to trench upon this matter: and the accusers would have been more deeply involved than Himself, if such had been the case, being by the law the prominent persons in the execution. So that I leave the difficulty unsolved. Lü cke (whose discussion on it see, ii. 261 ff.) observes: “ Since Jesus seems to avoid every kind of decision on the question put to Him, it follows that He found in it no reference to the great subjects of His teaching, but treated it as a purely civil or political matter, with which in His ministry He had no concern. Some kind of civil or political collision the question certainly was calculated to provoke: but from the brevity of the narration, and our want of more accurate knowledge of criminal proceedings at the time, it is impossible to lay down definitely, wherein the collision would have consisted.” p. 267. 5. I will just remark that the very fact of their questioning thus, ‘ Moses commanded, … but what sayest Thou?’ belongs to the last days of the Lord’ s ministry, and cannot well be introduced chronologically where it here stands: nor does John any where introduce these questions between the law of Moses and Jesus; but the synoptic Gospels often do. The command here mentioned is not to be found, unless ‘ putting to death’ generally, is to be interpreted as = stoning: compare Exodus 31:14 and 35:2, with Numbers 15:35, Numbers 15:36, in which the special order given by God would sanction such a view. But the Rabbis taught “ omne mortis supplicium in scriptura absolute positum esse strangulationem.” Tract. Sanhedr. ch. 10. (Lü cke, De Wette.) The passage Ezekiel 16:38, Ezekiel 16:40 proves nothing, or proves too much; for it is added, “ and thrust thee through with their swords.” I would rather suppose that from Deuteronomy 22:21, Deuteronomy 22:23, Deuteronomy 22:24, an inference was drawn what kind of a death was intended in ver. 22, the crime being regarded as the same; “ he hath humbled his neighbour’ s wife.” We have similar indefiniteness in ib. ver. 25, where evidently the same punishment is meant: see the whole matter discussed in Lü cke, ii. 257 ff. 6. κατέγ . εἰςτ . γῆν ] ὅπερεἰώθασιπολλάκιςποιεῖνοἱμὴθέλοντεςἀνακρίνεσθαιπρὸςτοὺςἐρωτῶνταςἄκαιρακαὶἀνάξια . γνοὺςγὰραὐτῶντὴνμηχανὴνπροσεποιεῖτογράφεινεἰςτὴνγῆν , καὶμὴπροσέχεινοἷςἔλεγονπροσεποιεῖτογράφεινεἰςτὴνγῆν , καὶμὴπροσέχεινοἷςἔλεγον . Euthym. The habit was a usual one to signify pre-occupation of mind, or intentional inattention: see instances in Wetstein and Lü cke. The one ordinarily cited from Æ lian is irrelevant: see Lü cke, ii. 269 note. The additions προσποιούμενος or μὴπροσπ . are glosses. It does not follow that any thing was actually written. Stier refers to Jeremiah 17:13, but perhaps without reason. This minute circumstance speaks strongly for the authenticity of the narration. 7. ἀναμάρτ . is common in the classics: see instances in Lü cke. It is not here used in the general sense, ‘ without sin’ (E. V.), nor in the strictest, ‘ free from the crime of adultery’ (it can hardly be that any of the Pharisees should have held themselves sinless,— or that all should have been implicated in adultery):— but— as ἁμαρτωλός , Luke 7:37,— of the sin of uncleanness generally. Stier, who contends strongly for the genuineness of this narrative in this place, finds in ver. 46 an allusion to this saying. I cannot say that his attempts to establish a connexion with the subsequent discourse are to me at all satisfactory: I am much more inclined to think with Luthardt (i. 16), that the whole arrangement and plan of our Gospel is broken by the insertion of this passage. The Lord Jesus was not sent to be a ruler and a judge in this or that particular case of crime, see Luke 12:14; but the Ruler and Judge of all: and His answer expresses this, by convicting them all of sin before Him. τόν (see digest), if genuine, refers to the first stone, which by Deuteronomy 17:7 the witnesses were to cast. 8. ἵναμή , βλέποντοςεἰςαὐτούς , αἰσχύνωνται , ῥᾷονοὕτωςἐλεγχθέντες , καὶἵνα , ὡςαὐτοῦδῆθενἀσχολουμένουεἰςτὸγράφειν , ἐξῇαὐτοῖςὑπαναχωρῆσαιπρὸφανερωτέραςκαταγνώσεως · καὶαὐτῶνγὰρἐφείδετοδι ʼ ὑπερβολὴνχρηστότητος . Euthym. The gloss in (see var. readd.) is curious. 9. They had said, τὰςτοιαύτας — they now perceive that they themselves were τοιοῦτοι . There is no historical difficulty in this conduct of the Pharisees, as Olshausen finds;— they were struck by the power of the word of Christ. It was a case somewhat analogous to that in which His ἐγώεἰμι struck His foes to the ground, ch. 18:6. The variations of reading are very wide (see digest) in the latter part of the verse. We can hardly (with some) lay any stress on πρεσβυτέρων , as indicating the natural order of conviction of sin. If the consciences of older sinners have heavier loads on them, those of younger ones are more tender. μόνος , i.e. with the multitude and the disciples; the woman standing between Him and the disciples on one hand,— and the multitude on the other. 10, 11. πλήν (v. r.) is only found here in John, Gosp. and Epp. κατακρίνω also is not found elsewhere in John, who uses κρίνω in its strict sense for it. The question is evidently so worded for the sake of οὐδὲἐγώσεκατακρίνω : but it expresses the truth in the depth of their hearts. The Lord’ s challenge to them would lead to a condemnation by comparison with themselves, if they condemned at all: which they had not done. The words of Jesus were in fact a far deeper and more solemn testimony against the sin than could be any mere penal sentence. And in judging of them we must never forget that He who thus spoke knew the hearts,— and what was the peculiar state of this woman as to penitence. We must not apply in all cases a sentence, which requires His divine knowledge to make it a just one.] 12-59. The conflict between Jesus and the Jews, at its height. 12-20. Testimony to Himself as the Light. 12. The attempts of Bengel, Schulthess, and Stier, to establish a connexion with the passage concerning the woman taken in adultery are forced and harsh. It was, say they, the early morning (ver. 2) and the sun was just rising, to which these words τὸφῶςτοῦκόσ . allude,— and the walking in darkness is an allusion to the woman, whose deed of darkness had been detected in the night. But not to dwell on other objections to this view,— e.g. that such an allusion to the woman would be wholly out of character after our Lord’ s previous treatment of her,— how come these Pharisees, who on the hypothesis of the above Commentators are the same as those who accused the woman, to be again so soon present? Was this at all likely? We cannot escape from this difficulty with Stier, iv. 363, edn. 2, by supposing a multitude of the people to have been witnesses on both occasions: the οἱΦαρισαῖοι of the one must surely extend through the other, if this connexion is to be maintained. On the other hand, this discourse comes in very well after ch. 7:52. The last saying of Jesus (ch. 7:37, 38) had referred to a festal usage then just over: He now adds another of the same kind. It was the custom during the first night, if not during every night, of the feast of tabernacles (see authorities in Wetstein), to light up two large golden chandeliers in the court of the women, the light of which illuminated all Jerusalem. All that night they held a festal dance by the light. Now granted that this was on the first night only,— what is there improbable in the supposition that our Lord— standing in the very place where the candlesticks had been or perhaps actually were— should have alluded to that practice, as He did to the outpouring of water in ch. 7:37, 38? Surely to say in both cases, as Lü cke and De Wette do, that the allusion could not have been made unless the usage took place on that day, is mere trifling. While the feast lasted, and the remembrance of the ceremonies was fresh, the allusion would be perfectly natural. τὸφῶςτ . κόσ .] See on ch. 1:9, and 11:9, 10. See also Isaiah 42:6: Malachi 4:2; and on τὸφῶςτῆςζωῆς , ch. 1:4, and 6:48. 13. See ch. 5:31. The assertion there was, that His own unsupported witness (supposing that possible) would not be trustworthy, but that His testimony was supported by, and in fact coincident with, that of the Father. The very same argument is here used, but the other side of it presented to us. He does witness of Himself, because His testimony is the testimony of the Father;— He being the λόγοςτοῦθεοῦ , and the Father witnessing in Him. 14. ὅτιοἶδακ .τ .λ .] See on ch. 7:29. This reason binds His testimony to that of the Father; for He came forth from the Father, ch. 16:28, and was returning to Him. “ Lumen,” says Augustine (Tract. in Joan. xxxv. 4) “ et alia demonstrat et seipsum.… Testimonium sibi perhibet lux: aperit sanos oculos et sibi ipsa testis est, ut cognoscatur lux.” Then again, he only who knows can witness: and Jesus only knew this. Notice ἦλθον and ἔρχομαι ,— I know whence I came:— this goes back to the ἐνἀρχῇἦν of ch. 1:1; but ye know not whence I come,— ‘ do not recognize even My present mission.’ We must not for a moment understand κἂνἐγὼμαρτ . with Grotius, “ even though I should witness,” &c.: “ etiamsi nulla essent de me prœ gressa prophetarum, nulla Joannis Baptistœ testimonia.” It does not suppose a case, but allows the fact. 15, 16. There is no allusion to the foregoing history; the train of thought is altogether another. ‘ The end of all testimony, is the forming, or pronouncing, of judgment. Ye do this by fleshly rules, concerning me and my mission: I judge no man, i. e. it is not the object nor habit of this My mission on earth; but even if I be called on to exercise judgment, my judgment is decisive:’ not exactly ἀληθής , but ἀληθινή , which rather means, genuine; which a judgment can only be by being true and final: see ch. 5:30 and note. 17. The ὑμετέρῳ seems to give this sense to the clause:— ‘ So that if you will have the mere letter of the law, and judge my testimony by it, I will even thus satisfy you:’ ὑμετ . thus implying, ‘ The law which you have made so completely your own by your kind of adherence to it.’ 19. Augustine (in Joan. Tract. xxxvii. 2, vol. iii. pt. ii.) and others imagine that the Jews thought of a human father, in thus speaking. But surely before this, as Stier remarks (iv. 370, edn. 2), the Jews must have become accustomed to ὁπατήρμου too well to mistake its meaning. It is rather a question asked in mere scorn, by persons who know, but will not recognize, the meaning of a word uttered by another. εἰἐμὲᾔδειτε ] See ch. 14:9 ff. and note. 20. τῷγαζοφυλακίῳ ] See Luke 21:1, and note on Mark 12:41. It was in the court of the women. οὔπωἐληλύθειἡὥρααὐτοῦ ] See ch. 7:8, 30. 21-59. Further discourses of Jesus. The Jews attempt to stone Him. This forms the great conclusion of the series of discourses to the Jews. In it our Lord testifies more plainly still to His divine origin and sinlessness, and to the cause of their unbelief; until at last their enmity is worked up to the highest pitch, and they take up stones to cast at Him. It may be divided into four parts: (1) vv. 21-24,— announcing to them the inevitable consequence of persistence in their unbelief on His withdrawal from them: (2) vv. 25-29,— the things which He has to say and judge of them, and the certainty of their own future recognition of Him and His truthfulness: (3) vv. 30-47,— the first springing up of faith in many of them is by Him corrected and purified from Jewish pride, and the source of such pride and unbelief detected: (4) vv. 48-58,— the accusation of the Jews in ver. 48, gives occasion to Him to set forth very plainly His own divine dignity and prœ -existence. 21. The time and place of this discourse are not definitely marked; but in all probability they were the same as before. Only no stress must be laid on the οὖν as connected with ver. 20, for it is only the accustomed carrying forward by the Evangelist of the great self-manifestation of Jesus. ζητ . με includes the idea ‘ and shall not find me,’ which is expressed in ch. 7:34, 36:— ye shall continue seeking Me. καὶἐντ . ἁμ .… and shall die (perish) in (not because of (Lampe, Kuinoel)) your sin. This sin is not unbelief, for, ver. 24, it is clearly distinguished from that: but, ‘ your state of sin, unremoved, and therefore abiding and proving your ruin’ (see on ver. 24). The words do not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, but to individual perdition. In these discourses in John, the public judgment of the Jews is not prominently brought forward, as in the other Evangelists. ὅπουἐγὼὑπ … is the consequence, not the cause (by any absolute decree) of their dying in their sins (see ch. 7:34; 13:33). This latter sense would have required ὅπουγάρ . 22. It is at least probable that they allude to the idea mentioned by Josephus, himself a Pharisee, in his speech at Jotapata, B. J. iii. 8. 5:— ὅσοιςδὲκαθ ʼ ἑαυτῶνἐμάνησαναἱχεῖρες , τούτωνμὲνᾅδηςδέχεταιτὰςψυχὰςσκοτιώτερος :— and with the bitterest malice taunt Him with thus being about to go where they, the children of Abraham, could never come. ὁἩρακλέων … φησὶνὅτιπονηρῶςδιαλογιζόμενοιοἱἸουδαῖοιταῦταἔλεγον , καὶμείζοναςἑαυτοὺςἀποφαινόμενοιτοῦΣωτῆροςκαὶὑπολαμβάνοντεςὅτιαὐτοὶμὲνἀπελεύσονταιπρὸςτὸνθεὸνεἰςἀνάπανσιναἰώνιον , ὁδέΣωτὴρεἰςφθορὰνκαὶεἰςθάνατονἑαυτὸνδιαχειρισάμενοςὅπουἑαυτοὺςοὐκἐλογίζοντοἀπελθεῖν . tom. ixx. c. 4, vol. iv. p. 302. De Wette thinks this too refined, and that such a meaning would, if intended, have been marked in our Lord’ s answer. 23. ‘ Ye cannot come where I am going, because we both shall return thither whence we came: I to the Father from Whom I came: ye to the earth and under the earth (for that more awful meaning surely is not excluded) whence ye came’ . Then ὁκόσμοςοὗτος of course does not only imply ‘ this present state of things,’ but involves the deeper meaning, of the origin of that state of things (see ver. 44) and its end, ver. 24. 24. Since this (ver. 23) is the case,— if ye do not believe that I am He, the Deliverer,— and be renewed by Faith, ye shall die in your sins (plural here, as struck nearer home to their consciences, and implying individual acts of sin, the results of the carnal state). On ἐγώεἰμι see note, ver. 58. 25. Their question follows on ἐγὼἐκτῶνἄνωεἰμί , ver. 23, and the dubious elliptical expression ἐγώεἰμι of the last verse. It is intended to bring out a plain answer on which their enmity might fasten. Our Lord’ s reply has been found difficult, principally from the ambiguity of ὅτι and ὅτι . No sense can however be given by ὅτι which will at all harmonize with the context, notwithstanding Luthardt’ s defence of it. Lü cke’ s interpretation (edn. 3) after Euthym., “ Why do I speak with you at all?” is not only ungrammatical, but most alien from the whole character of our Lord’ s discourses. I assume then that ὅτι is to be read. Then comes another question: what does λαλῶ mean? It has been usually rendered ‘ say,’ or ‘ tell;’ ‘ even the same that I said unto you from the beginning,’ E. V. But as De Wette has observed, λαλῶ will not bear this. It is never ‘ to say’ simply, but ‘ to discourse,’ or ‘ to hold converse,’ ‘ to speak.’ Again, what is τὴνἀρχήν not to be taken substantively (as Aug., , Vulg. principium), so as to mean ‘ The beginning, as I, &c.’ (so recently, Bp. Wordsw.): but adverbially, with all Greek interpreters (see reff.). And adverbially it may mean (1) ‘ in the beginning,’ ‘ from the beginning,’ but not ‘ firstly:’ (2) ‘ generally,’ ‘ at all,’ ‘ omnino,’ usually with a negative clause, but sometimes with an affirmative. Thus Soph. Antig. 92, ἀρχὴνδὲθηρᾶνοὐπρέπειτἀμήχανα : Herod. i. 9, ἀρχὴνγὰρἐγὼμηχανήσομαιοὕτω : iv. 25, τοῦτοοὐκἐνδέκομαιτὴνἀρχήν : Plato, Lysis, p. 265, πῶςοὖνοἱἀγαθοὶτοῖςἀγαθοῖςἡμῖνφίλοιἔσονταιτὴνἀρχήν ; See many more examples in Hermann on Viger, p. 722. The common rendering takes the first of these meanings;— but the above remarks on λαλῶ will set that rendering aside;— and together with the assumption of λαλῶ = ἔλεξα , the meaning, ‘ in the beginning,’ or ‘ at first,’ or ‘ from the beginning,’ falls to the ground. We have then the second meaning of τὴνἀρχήν , generally, or ‘ traced up to its principle,’ — for such is the account to be given of this meaning of the word. The rendering of καί , ‘ even,’ and placing it before τὴνἀρχ ., as done in E. V., is ungrammatical. It must be taken with λαλῶ , being inseparable from it by its position between the relative ὅτι and the verb: as in the clause, ὃςκαὶπαρέδωκεναὐτόν . This being premised, the sentence must be rendered (literally) thus: Essentially, that which I also discourse unto you: or In very deed, that same which I speak unto you. He is the λόγος — His discourses are the revelation of Himself. And there is especial propriety in this:— When Moses asked the name of God, “ I am that which I am,” was the mysterious answer; the hidden essence of the yet unrevealed One could only be expressed by self-comprehension; but when God manifest in the flesh is asked the same question, it is ‘ I am that which I speak:’ what He reveals Himself to be, that He is (see on next verse). The above sense is maintained by De Wette, and strikingly expanded and illustrated by Stier, iv. 378 ff., edn. 2. The meaning maintained by Meyer, “ Do ye ask, what I have been long telling you?” is ingenious, but seems to be by implication refuted by what has been said above. He gives a good ré sume of the interpretations. 26. He is, that which He speaks; and that, He has received from the Father;— He has His definite testimony to give, and His work to do: and therefore, though He has much that He could speak and judge about the Jews, He does it not, but overlooks their malice,— not answering it,— that He may go forward with the λαλεῖνεἰςτὸνκόσμον , the revelation of Himself: the ἀλήθεια of which is all-important, and excludes less weighty things. εἰςτ . κόσ ., out into the world, as εἰςτὸνἀέραλαλοῦντες , 1 Corinthians 14:9: see Mark 13:10: Luke 24:47. This verse is in the closest connexion with the foregoing. 27. They did not identify ὁπέμψαςμε with ὁπατήρμου . However improbable this may be after ὁπέμψαςμεπατήρ , ver. 18 (De Wette), it is stated as a fact; and the Evangelist certainly would not have done so without some sure ground:— εἰκὸςαὐτοὺςδιαπορεῖνπρὸςἀλλήλουςλέγονταςΤίςἐστινὁπέμψαςαὐτόν ; Euthym. There is no accounting for the ignorance of unbelief, as any minister of Christ knows by painful experience. 28. This connects (οὖν being the continuation of the foregoing, see above on ver. 21) with ver. 26, and also with ver. 27, as the τότεγνώσεσθε shews, referring to the οὐκἔγνωσαν . On ὑψ . see ch. 3:14. ‘ When ye shall have been the instruments of accomplishing that death by which He shall enter into His glory:’ for the latter idea is clearly implied here. τότεγνώσ .] Perhaps, in different ways:— some, by the power of the Holy Spirit poured out after the exaltation of Christ, and to their own salvation; others by the judgments which were to follow ere long, and to their own dismay and ruin. The construction and connexion of the following appears to be this: καὶἀπ ʼ ἐμαυτοῦ … depends on ὅτι , and is an expansion of ἐγώεἰμι : whereas ver. 29 is an independent assertion. The interchange of ποιῶ and λαλῶ is remarkable. The construction is not elliptical, so that ποιῶκ . λαλῶ should be understood in both cases; but the declaration of ver. 25 is still in the Lord’ s mind, His ποιεῖν being all a declaration of the Father,— a λαλεῖν in the widest sense. Cf. Bengel: “ cognoscetis ex re, quod nunc ex verbo non creditis.” 29. ἀφῆκεν , aor. referring to the appointment of the Father by which His work was begun, and which the μετ ʼ ἐμοῦἐστιν carries on through that work: see ch. 16:32. ὅτι , because;— not ‘ for,’ as if what follows were merely a token that it is so (Olsh.). The τὰἀρεστὰαὐτ . ποιῶπάντ . is the very essential being of the Son, and is the cause why the Father is ever with Him. 30. They believed on Him with a higher degree of faith than those in ch. 2:23, inasmuch as faith wrought by hearing is higher than that by miracles; but still wanted confirming. 31. ἐντῷλ . τῷἐμῷ = ἐνἐμοί , ch. 15:7, though that perhaps is spoken of a deeper entrance into the state of union with Christ. Remaining in His word is not merely obeying His teaching, but is the inner conviction of the truth of that revelation of Himself, which is his λαλιά or λόγος . ἐστέ , for probably they had given some outward token of believing on Him, e.g. that of ranging themselves among His disciples. 32. In opposition to the mere holding of the truth. The knowing of the truth answers to the feeding on Christ;— is the inner realization of it in the man. And in the continuing increase of this comes true freedom from all fear and error and bondage. 33. The answerers are the πεπιστευκότες , not some others among the hearers, as many Commentators (Lampe, Kuinoel, De Wette, Lü cke, edn. 3) have maintained;— see, as a proof of this, ver. 36, addressed to these same persons. They had not yet become ἀληθῶςμαθηταί , were not yet distinct from the mass of the unbelieving; and therefore, in speaking to them, He ascribes to them the sins of their race, and addresses them as part of that race. σπέρμαἈβ . ἐσμ .] See Matthew 3:9. The assertion οὐδενὶδεδ . πώπ . was so contrary to historical truth, that we must suppose some technical meaning to have been attached to δεδουλεύκαμεν , in which it may have been correct. The words cannot be meant of that generation only, for πώποτε connects with σπέρμαἈβ . ἐσ ., and generalizes the assertion. As usual (see ch. 3:4; 4:11; 6:52), they take the words of our Lord in their outward literal sense. Perhaps this was not always an unintentional misunderstanding. 34. ποιῶντὴνἁμαρτ ., not = ἁμαρτάνων , for that all do; but = ἐργαζόμενοςτὴνἀνομίαν , Matthew 7:23. It implies living in the practice of sin,— doing sin, as a habit: see reff. The mere moral sentiment of which this is the spiritual expression, was common among the Greek and Roman philosophers. See Wetstein: also Romans 6:12: 2 Peter 2:19. 35. I believe, with Stier and Bengel, the reference to be to Hagar and Ishmael, and Isaac: the bond and the free. They had spoken of themselves as the seed of Abraham. The Lord shews them that there may be, of that seed, two kinds; the son, properly so called, and the slave. The latter does not abide in the house for ever: it is not his right nor his position— ‘ Cast out the bondwoman and her son.’ ‘ But the son abideth ever.’ For the application, see on following verses. ὁδοῦλος and ὁυἱός are in this verse generic merely. 36. Ye then, being in sin, are carnal: the sons of the bondwoman, and therefore need liberation. Now comes in the spiritual reality, into which the discourse passes from the figure. This liberation can only take place by means of Him of whom Isaac was the type— the Seed according to promise; those only who of His Spirit are born again, and after His image, are ὄντωςἐλεύθεροι — truly sons of God, and no longer children of the bondwoman, but of the free. See by all means Galatians 4:19 (where the subject really begins, not at ver. 21) to end, which is the best commentary on this verse. There neither is, nor can be here, any allusion either to the liberation of the sabbatical year (Œ colampadius); or to the subject of Heb 3:5, Hebrews 3:6 (Euthym., after Chrys.). 37. ‘ Ye are Abraham’ s seed, according to the flesh and the covenant: but’ — and here the distinction appears— ‘ ye ποιεῖτετὴνἁμαρτίαν by seeking to kill Me, because My λόγος (see above on ver. 31) οὐχωρεῖ — does not work in you’ (not, among you). Herodian, v. 3. 31, says of a report, ὥστεεἰςπᾶνχωρῆσαιτὸστρατιωτικόν , ‘ it spread through the whole army.’ Such expressions as τὰπράγματαχωρεῖκατὰλόγον , Polyb. xxiii. 15. 12,— ταῦτακαλῶςκατὰνοῦνἐχώρειαὐτῷ , ib. x. 15. 4,— πῶςοὖνοὐχωρεῖτοὖργον ; Aristoph. Pax 464, seem also to illustrate this meaning. 38. We have the same remarkable relation between λαλεῖν and ποιεῖν , as in ver. 28: except that here the ποιεῖν is applied to the Jews only; λαλεῖν being used in the same comprehensive sense as there. But notice the distinction in the restored text between ἑώρακαπαρὰτῷπατρί and ἠκούσατεπαρὰτοῦπατρός , ὁπατήρ being a common term, and the articles possessive. [The speaking and doing were in each case from the father of each. But] Jesus was πρὸςτὸνθεόν , in a relation of abiding unity with His Father: they were ἐκτοῦπατρὸςτοῦδιαβ .,— he was the suggester of their course, the originator of their acts. Jesus was the υἱός , who remains in the house and sees the father’ s acts: they the δοῦλοι , merely prescribed to and under bondage. The οὐν implies accordingly,— by the same rule. 39, 40. There is a distinction between σπέρμα and τέκνα . The former our Lord grants that they were (ver. 37), but the latter (by implication— see below on the construction) He denies them. See Romans 9:7, οὐγὰρπάντεςοἱἐξἸσραήλ , οὗτοιἹσραήλ · οὐδ ʼ ὅτιεἰσὶνσπέρμαἉβραάμ , πάντεςτέκνα . The latter betokens likeness, true genuine descent in character and habits. The reading in the text is remarkable as connecting together the present ἔστε and the imperfect ἐποιεῖτε . In such a case there must be a suppressed change of meaning between the protasis and the apodosis. The εἰἔστε concedes, in a certain sense: the ἐποιεῖτε denies, by making an assumption at variance with present fact. The sentence is in fact a combination of a protasis of one form with an apodosis of another. It might have been, (a) εἰἔστε … , ποιεῖτε ; or, (b) εἰἦτε … , ἐποιεῖτε . But as it stands, protasis (a) is joined with apodosis (b): and thereby the τέκνατοῦἈβραὰμεἶναι in any worthy sense is denied, while in the mere formal sense it is conceded. τοῦτο , this; not, ‘ tale quid:’ and ἐποίησεν , fecit, not ‘ fecisset:’ for the statement is one of a fact:— this did not Abraham, as E. V.: see Gen_18. 41. ποιεῖτε — not imperative, which destroys the sense. ἐκπορν .] Stier remarks, that they now let fall Abraham as their father, being convicted of unlikeness to him. They see that a spiritual paternity must be meant, and accordingly refer to God as their Father. This consideration will rule the sense of ἐκπορν ., which must therefore be spiritual also. And spiritually the τέκναπορνείας , ref. Hosea, are idolaters. πολύθεοςὁἐκπόρνης , τυφλώττωνπερὶτὸνἀληθῆπατέρα , καὶδιὰτοῦτοπολλοὺςἀνθ ʼ ἑνὸςγονεῖςαἰνιττόμενος . Philo de Migr. Abr. 13, vol. i. p. 447. Ishmael cannot well be alluded to; for they would not call the relation between Abraham and Hagar one of πορνεία . Still less can Origen’ s interpretation be adopted, ἔλεγονἩμεῖςμᾶλλονἕναπατέραἔχομεντὸνθεόν , ἤπερσύ , ὁφάσκωνμὲνἐκπαρθένουγεγεννῆσθαι , ἐκπορνείαςδὲγεγεννημένος , καὶδιὰτὸαὐχεῖντὸἐκπαρθένουγεγεννῆσθαιλέγωνἕναπατέραἔχεινμόνον , τὸνθεόν (tom. 20:14, p. 327),— for our Lord never proclaimed this of Himself. There may possibly be a reference to the Samaritans (ver. 48), who completely answered in the spiritual sense to the children of fornication: see Deuteronomy 31:16: Isaiah 1:21: Ezekiel 16:15 ff.; 20:30 . 42. ‘ If you were the children of God, the ethical proof (as Lutbardt well calls it) of such descent would be, that you would love Me, who am κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν the Son of God, and who am come by the mission, and bearing the character, of God.’ ἥκω conveys the result of ἐξῆλθον , as Meyer; who also remarks that mere sending will not exhaust ἐξῆλθον , which must be taken metaphysically, of the proceeding forth of the Eternal Son from the essence of the Father. 43. λαλιὰνγινώσκειν is to understand the idiom or dialect in which a man speaks, λαλ . being his manner of speech: see Matthew 26:73, and Son 4:3, LXX. Why do ye not understand my speech? as E. V. But this of course does not here refer to the mere outward expression of the Lord’ s discourses, but to the spiritual idiom in which He spoke, and which can only be spiritually understood. Then ὁλόγοςὁἐμός is the matter of those discourses, the Word itself. The connexion of the two clauses is, Why, &c.? Because ye cannot receive, hear with the inner ear (see reff., and ch. 6:60), that which I say. And the verification and ground of this ‘ cannot’ is in the next verse. Meyer remarks, that in questions and answers, the emphatic words come last— being here γινώσκετε and τὸνλόγοντ . ἐμόν . 44. The first article τοῦ is important, and to be rendered (against Meyer) as in E. V., your father the devil. This verse is one of the most decisive testimonies for the objective personality of the devil. It is quite impossible to suppose an accommodation to Jewish views, or a metaphorical form of speech, in so solemn and direct an assertion as this. θέλετεποιεῖν is important, and should have been in E. V. more marked: Your will is to do: or, as A.V.R. “ ye love to do” [or, are inclined to do]. It indicates, as in ch. 5:40, the freedom of the human will, as the foundation of the condemnation of the sinner. ἀνθρωποκτόνος ] The most obvious reference seems to be, to the murder of Abel by Cain: see the Apostle’ s own comment on these words, 1 John 3:12, 1 John 3:15. But this itself was only a result of the introduction of death by sin, which was the work of the devil: Adam and Eve were the first whom he murdered. But then again both these were only manifestations of the fact here stated by divine omniscience respecting him: that he was ἀνθρωποκτόνος . ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς , the author and bringer in of that hate which is ἀνθρωποκτονία , 1 John 3:15. The mention of murder is introduced because the Jews went about to kill Jesus; and the typical parallel of Cain and Abel is certainly hinted at in the words: see Lü cke’ s note, ii. 338 ff., and Stier, iv. 414 (edn. 2) ff. οὐχἕστηκεν , not ‘ abode not,’ E. V.; a sense which ἕστηκα will not bear, being always present in meaning, and = ‘ I have placed myself,’ i.e. I stand: see Matthew 12:47; Matthew 20:6: Mark 9:1; Mark 11:5: John 3:29: Acts 1:11; Acts 7:33: Romans 5:2; Romans 11:20 al. fr.: whereas the pluperfect, εἱστήκειν , ‘ I had placed myself,’ i.e. I stood, is imperfect in sense: see Matthew 12:46. And that this place forms no exception, is shewn by ὅτιοὐκἔστιν immediately following. But as the account of this present sense shews, it is not a mere present, but a present dependent on and commencing with an implied past fact. And that fact here is, the fall of the devil, which was not an insulated act, but in which state of apostasy from the truth he ἕστηκεν ,— it is his status. So Euthym.: ἐμμένει , ἀναπαύεται . ἡἀλήθεια , as De Wette remarks, is objective: the truth of God:— in this he standeth not, because there is no truth (‘ truthfulness,’ subjective) in him. His lie has become his very nature, and therefore he is thoroughly alien from the truth of God. To take ὅτι as ‘ not the cause, but the proof’ is not only to do violence to construction, but to overthrow the whole sense of the passage. τὸψεῦδος , a lie; generic: we in English have retained the article in the expression ‘ to speak the truth,’ but not in the corresponding one. He ἐλάλειτὸψεῦδος to Eve. ἐκτ . ἰδ ., of his own, as E. V., not, ‘ according to his character’ (De Wette),— but ‘ out of his own resources,’ ‘ treasures:’ see Matthew 12:35. ὁπατ . αὐτοῦ ] i.e. either τοῦψεύδους — (absolutely, or as understood in ψεύστης ,— Orig., Euthym., Theophyl., &c. Nitzsch (Theol. Zeitschrift, 1822), De Wette, Lü cke, Wordsw., and Winer, § 22. 3. b),— or τοῦψεύστου , of the liar generally. The former is not the fact,— for the devil is not the father τοῦψεύδους , but τῶνψευστῶν , by being himself one whose very nature has become τὸψεῦδος . Certainly by this he has become the author, promoter, of falsehood among men; but this kind of paternity is not here in question: the object being to shew that he was the father of these lying Jews. I therefore hold the latter interpretation, with Bengel, Meyer, and Stier. The construction of this passage with the art. before πατήρ has presented insuperable difficulty to Bp. Middleton and others: see Midd. in loc. The rendering which he proposes is this: “ When (any of you) speaks that which is false, he speaks after the manner of his kindred (ἐκτῶνἰδίων !), for he is a liar, and so also is his father,” i.e. the devil. To which the late Prof. Scholefield proposes an emendation, to take away the comma after ἐστίν , and translate, “ For his father also is a liar,” not knowing, apparently, that this was the ancient heretical interpretation according to which the πατὴραὐτοῦ was the Demiurge: see Meyer, edn. 3, and Hilgenfeld, referred to by him as supporting this rendering. It is really almost incredible that learned men, students of our Lord’ s discourses, should seriously uphold an interpretation so utterly absurd and preposterous. It is only an instance how the judgment may be warped by the adoption of canons respecting the article grounded on insufficient observation. The instances which Middleton adduces to prove that according to the ordinary rendering, the article must be omitted before πατήρ , none of them touch the question. The article here is emphatic, and could not be omitted, any more than in the sentence ἐγώεἰμιὁἄρτοςτῆςζωῆς . The simple account to be given of this construction, is that it = ὅτιψεύστηςἐστίν , καὶὁπατὴραὐτῶν : but by ψεύστης being singular, the pronoun is attracted into the singular also. 45. ‘ And the very reason why ye do not believe Me (as contrasted with him) is, because I speak the truth;— you not being of the truth, but of him who is falsehood itself.’ This implies a charge of wilful striving against known and recognized truth. Euthymius fills up the context— εἰμὲνἔλεγονψεῦδος , ἐπιστεύσατέμοιἄν , ὡςτὸἴδιοντοῦπατρὸςὑμῶνλέγοντι : see ch. 5:43. 46. ἁμαρτία here is strictly sin: not ‘ error in argument,’ or ‘ falsehood.’ These two latter meanings are found in classical Greek, but never in the N.T. or LXX. And besides, they would introduce in this most solemn part of our Lord’ s discourse, a vapid tautology. The question is an appeal to His sinlessness of life, as evident to them all,— as a pledge for His truthfulness of word: which word asserted, be it remembered, that He was sent from God. And when we recollect that He who here challenges men to convict him of sin, never could have upheld outward spotlessness merely (see Matthew 23:26-28), the words amount to a declaration of His absolute sinlessness, in thought, word, and deed. Or, the connexion may be as stated by Euthym.: εἰμὴδιότιτὴνἀλήθειανλέγωἀπιστεῖτέμοι , εἴπατε , τίςἐξὑμῶνἐλέγχειμεπερὶἁμαρτίαςὑπ ʼ ἐμοῦγενομένης , ἵναδόξητεδι ʼ ἐκείνηνἀπιστεῖν ; εἰἀλ . λέγω ] And if it be thence (from the impossibility of convicting me of sin) evident, that I speak the truth, why do ye not believe Me? (not πιστ . εἰςἐμέ , but simply μοι , give credence to Me.) Ver. 47 gives the answer to the διὰτί , and concludes the discourse with the final disproof of their assertion, ver. 41,— with, as it were, a ‘ quod erat demonstrandum.’ This verse is cited 1 John 4:6. 48. The Jews attempt no answer, but commence reviling Him. These are now properly οἱἸουδ .,— the principal among the Jews. Σαμ .] So they called ‘ outcasts from the commonwealth of Israel:’ and so afterwards they called the Christians ב ו ת י י ם , from כ ּ ו ּ ת ָ ה (2 Kings 17:24). They imply, that He differed from their interpretation of the law,— or perhaps, as He had convicted them of not being the genuine children of Abraham, they cast back the charge with a senseless ‘ Tu quoque.’ There may perhaps be a reference to the occurrence related in ch. 4:5 ff.; but Schö ttgen (p. 371) has shewn that “ Samaritanus es” is found in the Rabbis as addressed to one whose word is not to be believed. κ . δαιμ . ἔχ .] “ As in the first clause they sundered Him from the communion of Israel, so now from that of Israel’ s God.” Stier. Or perhaps they mean the reproach more as expressing aggravated madness owing to dæ moniacal possession. The καλῶςλέγομεν connects with the charge twice brought against Him by the Pharisees, ‘ of casting out devils by the prince of the devils.’ 49. The former term of reproach Jesus passes over (“ cum jam inter Samaritanos haberet, qui in eum credebant.” Lampe; but qu.?), and mildly answers (1 Peter 2:23) the malicious charge of having a devil, by an appeal to his whole life and teaching (see ch. 4:34), which was not the work of one having a devil. There is no retort of the charge in the emphatic ἐγώ , as and Lü cke; this, as Meyer observes, would have required οὐκἐγώ . At present the ἐγώ followed by ὑμεῖς only brings out the two parties into stronger contrast. κ . ὑμ . ἀτιμ . με ] The ἐγώ and ὑμεῖς correspond strictly to the ἡμεῖς and σύ of the preceding verse. ‘ Our mutual relation is not that, but this: that I honour Him that sent me, and ye, in dishonouring me, dishonour Him.’ It is the same contrast, the ἐκτοῦθεοῦ and οὐκἐκτοῦθεοῦ , as before, ver. 47, which lies at the root. 50. ‘ Ye dishonour me;— not that I seek my own honour, but His who sent me. There is One who seeketh my honour (ch. 5:23), and will have me honoured; and who judgeth between me and you, between truth and falsehood.’ Supply τ . δόξανμου after ζητῶν , but not after κρίνων . 51. There is no pause (De Wette) between ver. 50 and this. This is the direct carrying on of the discourse, arising out of κρίνων in the last verse, and forming a “ novum tentamen gratiæ ” (Lampe). ‘ Ye are now children of the devil, but if ye keep My word ye shall be rescued from that ἀνθρωποκτόνος .’ τὸνἐμ . λόγ . τηρ ., as ἐντῷλόγῳτῷἐμῷμένειν , ver. 31, is not only outward obedience, but the endurance in, and obedience of faith. θεωρεῖνθάν ., as γεύεσθαιθαν ., is a Hebraism for to die,— see reff.,— and must not be pressed to mean, ‘ shall not feel (the bitterness of) death,’ in a temporal sense, as has been done by Stier (iv. 433, edn. 2). The death of the body is not reckoned as death, any more than the life of the body is life, in our Lord’ s discourses: see ch. 11:25, 26, and notes. Both words have a deeper meaning. 52, 53. The Jews, not knowing what death really imports, regard the saying as a decisive proof of their surmise ver. 48. “ Their misunderstanding (says De Wette) keeps to the well-known type (ch. 3:4; 4:11 ff.), but this time theocratic pride is added to carnal sensuousness:— ‘ the O.T. Saints died!’  ” 54, 55. The argument in these verses is: ‘ The same God who is the God of Abraham, is my Father;— He it is who honours (glorifies) me, and it is His word that I keep. I was promised by Him to Abraham.’ δοξάσω , ‘ glorify myself to this high designation, of being able to deliver from death.’ ὃνλέγ .] Whom you are in the habit of calling your God (for so of course the θεὸςἡμῶν imports)— i.e. the God of Israel. A most important identification, from the mouth of our Lord Himself, of the Father, with the God of Israel in the O.T. The καί here is not ‘ but,’ nor ‘ although;’ the sense is, of Whom ye say ‘ He is our God,’ and know Him not. Then what follows sets forth the contrast between them, the pretended children of Abraham, who know not Abraham’ s God (the liars), and Him who knows Him, and keeps His word, so that His word works in and by Him; yea, He is ὁλόγοςτοῦθεοῦ . His allowing their denial of this state of knowledge and union would be as great a lie in Him, as their assumption of it was in them. ὅμοιοςὑμῶν signifies the being ‘ one of them;’ as we say, ‘ the like of them.’ 56. The Lord does not deny them their outward title of children of Abraham:— it is of spiritual things that He has been speaking, in refusing them the reality of it. ἠγαλλ . ἵναἴδῃ , rejoiced, that He should see; not (Grotius, Calov., Kuin., &c.) “ wished that he might see.” The object of his joy is treated as its purpose. The intent is to shew that Abraham did in his time keep Christ’ s word, viz. by a prospective realizing faith; and therefore that he, in the sense of ver. 51, had not seen death. This is expressed by κ . εἶδενκ . ἐχάρη : see below. But what is τ . ἡμ . τ . ἐμήν Certainly, the day of Christ’ s appearance in the flesh (ὁτῆςἐπιδημίαςαὐτοῦκαιρός , Cyril Alex.). When that was over, and the attention was directed to another and future appearance, the word came to be used of His second coming, 1 Corinthians 1:8, &c. &c. But this, as well as the day of His Cross (Euthym, al.), is out of the question here;— and the word Rabbinically was used for the time of the Messiah’ s appearance. So we have it, Luke 17:22, Luke 17:26: but here as there, the expression must not be limited exclusively to the former appearance. From the sense it is evident that Abraham saw by faith and will see in fact, not the first coming only, but that which it introduces and implies, the second also. Technically however, in the form of the sentence here, the First is mainly in view. And to see that day, is to be present at, witness, it;— to have experience of it. κ . εἶδενκ . ἐχάρη , viz. in his Paradisiacal state of bliss. Maldonatus has a striking note here (ii. 710): “ Cum dicit, vidit, haud dubium quin eo modo vidisse dicat, quo videre dixerat tantopere concupivisse. Non autem concupiverat sola videre fide … quia fide jam Christi diem videbat.… Vidit ergo diem Christi re ipsa, quemadmodum et ille et patres omnes videre concupiverant. Non quod vivus viderit, sed quod mortuus Christum venisse noverit, tempusque illud exactum esse quod usque ad ejus adventum a Deo constitutum fuisse sciebat. Quod enim dicit, Exsultavit ut videret diem meum, perinde valet ac si diceret, Cupivit ut veniret dies meus: venit, et gavisus est. Quis enim dubitet Abraham et cæ teros patres qui cum eo erant (sive ex revelatione, quam in hac vita habuissent, sive ex revelatione, quam tunc, quum Christus venit, habuerint de ejus adventu) non ignorasse Christum venisse, etiam antequam ad eos post mortem veniret?” Only that I would rather believe, as Stier does (iv. 444 f. edn. 2), that the ‘ seeing of Christ’ s day’ was not by revelation, but actual— the seeing of a witness. ‘ Abraham then has not seen death, but lives through my word;— having believed and rejoiced in the promise of Me, whom he has now seen manifest in the flesh.’ Meyer quotes the Socinian interpretation as a specimen of “ monstrous perversion:” “ exultaturus fuisset … et si vidisset, omnino fuisset gavisurus.” 57. No inference can be drawn from this verse as to the age of our Lord at the time, according to the flesh. Fifty years was with the Jews the completion of manhood. The reading τεσσαράκοντα — found in Cod. , and read by Chrys., of which Euthym. says, ὅπερδοκεῖἀκριβέστερον ,— has probably been introduced for that very reason. 58. As Lü cke remarks, all unbiassed exegesis of these words must recognize in them a declaration of the essential præ -existence of Christ. All such interpretations of πρὶνἈβραὰμγενέσθαι , as “ before Abraham became Abraham,” i.e. father of many nations (Socinus and others), and of ἐγὼεἰμί , as “ I was predetermined, promised by God” (Grotius and the Socinian interpreters), are little better than dishonest quibbles. The distinction between γενέσθαι and εἰμί is important. “ Antequam nasceretur Abraham, ego sum” (Erasmus). The present εἰμί expresses essential existence, as in reff., especially Colossians 1:17, and was often used by our Lord to assert His Divine Being. In this verse the God-head of Christ is involved; and this the Jews clearly understood, by their conduct to Him. 59. Probably there were stones (for building) lying about in the outer court of the temple, where these words seem to have been spoken. The reason of the Jews’ doing this is given by them on a similar occasion, ch. 10:33, ὅτισὺἄνθρωποςὢνποιεῖςσεαυτὸνθεόν . There does not appear to be any miraculous escape intended here, although certainly the assumption of one is natural under the circumstances. Jesus was probably surrounded by His disciples, and might thus hide himself (see ch. 12:36), and go out of the temple. Chap. 9, 10. Jesus the light, for the healing of the world and the judgment of the Jews. 9:1-41. Manifestation of Jesus as the Light by a miracle. Judgment of the Jews by the healed man, and by Jesus. 1. This, if the concluding words of ch. 8. in the . are genuine, would appear to have happened on the same day [as the incidents there related], which is hardly likely, for we should thus have the whole incidents from ch. 7:37 (omitting ch. 7:53-8:12), belonging to one day, and that day a sabbath (ver. 14). And besides, the circumstances under which Jesus here appears are too usual and tranquil to have succeeded immediately to His escape in ch. 8:59. I would rather therefore suppose that there is a break before this verse: how long, we cannot of course say. Thus we have the commencement of a new narrative here, as in ch. 6:1, and 7:1. This is the view of Lü cke, Tholuck, and De Wette; Olshausen, Meyer, and Stier believe it to have been the same day; and the former refers the ἦνσάβ . (ver. 14) to its being the last day of the feast (ch. 7:37, where see note). The blind man was sitting begging (ver. 8), possibly proclaiming the fact of his having been so born; for otherwise the disciples could hardly have asked the following question. The incident may have been in the neighbourhood of the temple (Acts 3:2): but doubtless there were other places where beggars sat, besides the temple entrances. 2. According to Jewish ideas, every infirmity was the punishment of sin (see ver. 34). From Exodus 20:5, and the prevailing views on the subject, the disciples may have believed that the man was visited for the sins of his parents: but how could he himself have sinned before his birth? Beza and Grotius refer the question to the doctrine of metempsychosis; that he may have sinned in a former state of existence; this however is disproved by Lightfoot and Lampe. The Pharisees believed that the good souls only passed into other bodies, which would exclude this case (see Jos. Antt. xviii. 1. 3, and B. J. ii. 8. 14). Lightfoot, Lü cke, and Meyer refer it to the possibility of sin in the womb; Tholuck to predestinated sin, punished by anticipation: De Wette to the general doctrine of the præ -existence of souls, which prevailed both among the Rabbis and Alexandrians: see Wisd. 8:19, 20 (the applicability of which passage is doubted by Stier, iv. 455 note, edn. 2). So Isidore of Pelusium in the Catena (Lü cke, ii. 372), οὗτος , ὥςφασινἝλληνες ,— ἢοἱγονεῖςαὐτοῦ , ὥςφασινἸουδαῖοι . The question may have been asked vaguely without any strict application of it to the circumstances, merely taking for granted that some sin must have led to the blindness, and hardly thinking of the non-applicability of one of the suppositions to this case. Or perhaps, as Stier inclines to suppose, the οὖτος , ἤ may mean, ‘ this man, or, for that is out of the question , his parents?’ ἵνα as a cause why he should be … ,— used τελικῶς :— not ἐκβατικῶς (Olsh.), expressing the mere consecution of events. 3. After αὐτοῦ supply ἵνατυφ . γεν .: ‘ neither of these was the cause; but τυφ . ἐγεννήθη , in order that.… ’ But how so? οὐκολαστικῶς , ἀλλ ʼ οἰκονομικῶς . In the economy of God’ s Providence, his suffering had its place and aim, and this was to bring out the ἔργατ . θεοῦ in his being healed by the Redeemer (see Romans 11:11 and note). So Lü cke:— De Wette denies the interpretation, and refers the saying merely to the view of our Lord to bring out his own practical design, to make use of this man to prove His divine power. But see ch. 11:4, which is strictly parallel. 4. Connected by ἐργάζ . τὰἔργα to the former verse. There certainly seems to be some reference to its being the sabbath; see the similar expressions in ch. 5:17. From ὅταν … , in ver. 5, it seems evident that ἡμέρα is the appointed course of the working of Jesus on earth, and νύξ the close of it (see the parallel, ch. 11:9, 10). It is true, that, according to John’ s universal diction, the death of Jesus is His glorification; but the similitude here regards the effect on the world, see ver. 5; and the language of Rom 13:12 is in accordance with it, as also Luke 22:53: John 14:30. 5. This partly explains the ἡμ . and νύξ of the former verse, partly alludes to the nature of the healing about to take place. As before the raising of Lazarus (ch. 11:25), He states that He is the Resurrection and the Life; so now, He sets forth Himself as the source of the archetypal spiritual light, of which the natural, now about to be conferred, is only a derivation and symbol. 6. See reff. Mark. The virtue especially of the saliva jejuna, in cases of disorders of the eyes, was well known to antiquity. Pliny, . . xxviii. 7, says, “ Lippitudines matutina quotidie velut inunctione arceri.” In both accounts (Suet. Vesp. 7: Tacitus, Hist. iv. 8) of the restoring of a blind man to sight attributed to Vespasian, the use of this remedy occurs. See also Wetstein in loc. (Trench, Miracles, 293 note, edn. 2). The use of clay also for healing the eyes was not unknown. Serenus Samonicus (in the time of Caracalla) says: “ Si tumor insolitus typho se tollat inani, Turgentes oculos vili circumline cœ no.” No rule can be laid down which our Lord may seem to have observed, as to using, or dispensing with, the ordinary human means of healing. He Himself determined by considerations which are hidden from us. Whatever the means used, the healing was not in them, but in Him alone. The ‘ conductor’ of the miraculous power was generally the faith of the recipient: and if such means served to awaken that faith, their use would be accounted for. 7. The reason of his being sent to Siloam is uncertain. It may have been as part of the cure,— or merely to wash off the clay. The former is most probable, especially as the εἰς must be taken with νίψαι , not with ὕπαγε , and thus would imply immersion in the pool. So x. p. 438 F (in Meyer), λούεσθαιεἰςλουτρῶνας . A beggar blind from his birth would know the localities sufficiently to be able to find his way; so that there is no necessity to suppose a partial restoration of sight before his going. The situation of the fountain and pool of Siloam is very doubtful. Robinson makes both at the mouth of the ancient Tyropœ on, s.e. of the city. He himself explored a subterranean passage from this spot to the Fountain of the Virgin higher up on the banks of the Kedron. Josephus, B. J. v. 4. 1, says, ἡδὲτῶντυροποιῶνπροσαγορευομένηφάραγξ … καθήκειμέχριΣιλωάμ · οὕτωγὰρτὴνπηγήν , γλυκεῖάντεκαὶπολλὴνοὖσαν , ἐκαλοῦμεν . Jerome sets it “ ad radices montis Zion” (on Isaiah 8:6), and mentions its intermittent character: but he also says (on Matthew 10:28), “ ad radices montis Moria, in quibus Siloo fluit:” so that his testimony exactly agrees with Josephus and Robinson (see Robins. i. 493 ff., and The Land and the Book, pp. 659 ff.). It is mentioned Nehemiah 3:15: Isaiah 8:6. On the subject of a recent suggestion respecting the identity of Siloam and Bethesda, see supplementary note at the end of this volume. ὃἑρμ . ἀπεστ .] The reason of this derivation being stated has been much doubted. Some (e.g. Lü cke) consider the words to have been inserted as an early gloss of some allegorical interpreter. But there is no external authority for this; every ms. and version containing them, except the . and Pers. Euthym. says, οἶμαιδιὰτὸνἀπεσταλμένονἐκεῖτότετυφλόν . So also Nonnus: ὕδωρστελλομένοιοπροώνυμονἐκσέοπομπῆς : and Meyer takes this view. But it would be a violent transfer,— of the name of the fountain, to the man who was sent thither. I should rather regard the healing virtue imparted to the water to be denoted, as symbolical of Him who was sent, and whose mission it was to give the healing water of life. , Chrys., Thl., Erasm., Beza, Calvin, &c., and Ebrard and Luthardt, similarly refer ἀπεσταλ . to the Lord Jesus: Stier, to the Holy Spirit,— but as one with, and proceeding from Christ. ἦλθεν , came back;— apparently to his own house, by the next verse. 8. θεωροῦντες belongs to τὸπρότερον , and thus expresses the present relatively to that time,— οἳἦσαντὸπρότ . θεωροῦντες . The choice of the word θεωροῦντες implies attention and habit. The reading τυφλός was most likely a correction of some one who thought προσαίτης did not express plainly enough the change in him. The question of identity would be much more likely to turn on whether he was really the person who had sat and begged (the blindness being involved in it), than on the fact of his having been blind. 11. ἀνέβλ ., strictly speaking, is in-appropriate in the case of one born blind. Lü cke refers to Aristotle as using the word thus, and cites Pausanias, who speaks of Ὀφιονέα … τὸνἐκγενετῆςτυφλόν , whom ἐπέλαβετῆςκεφαλῆςἄλγημαἰσχυρόν , καὶἀνέβλεψενἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦ . Sight being natural to men, the deprivation of it is regarded as a loss, and the reception of it, though never enjoyed before, as a recovery. So Grotius: “ nec male recipere quis dicitur, quod communiter tributum humanæ naturæ ipsi abfuit.” There is no emphasis on μου here (as Bp. Wordsw.) nor in vv. 15, 30: nor on σου in vv. 10, 17, 26. See on Matthew 16:18, and compare Luke 12:18. 13. The neighbours appear to have brought him to the Pharisees, out of hostility to Jesus (see ver. 12): and ver. 14 alleges the reason of this:— or perhaps from fear of the sentence alluded to in ver. 22. The ‘ Pharisees’ here may have been the court presiding over the synagogue, or one of the lesser local courts of Sanhedrim. Lü cke inclines to think they were an assembly of the great Sanhedrim, whom John sometimes names οἱΦαρ .: see ch. 7:47; 11:46: Meyer regards them as some formal section of the Pharisees, as a body: but were there such? 14. Lightf. cites from a Rabbinical treatise on the Sabbath, “ sputum etiam super palpebras poni prohibitum.” But the making the clay, as a servile work, seems to be here prominently mentioned. Meyer notices,— and it is interesting, as a minute mark of accuracy,— that the man only relates what he himself, as being blind, had felt: he says nothing of the spittle. 15. πάλιν refers to ver. 10. The enquiry was official, as addressed to the chief witness in the matter. We cannot hence infer with Lü cke that no one else was present at the healing but Jesus and His disciples. 16. τινὲς … ἄλλοι ] Among the latter party would be such as Nicodemus, Joseph, (Gamaliel?); who probably (Joseph certainly, Luke 23:51) at last withdrew, and left the majority to carry out their hate against Jesus. 17. The question is but one, as in E. V., What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened (i.e. for having opened) thine eyes? The stress is on σύ — ‘ What hast thou to say to it, seeing we are divided on the matter?’ Both parties are anxious to have the man’ s own view to corroborate theirs. προφ ., and therefore παρὰτοῦθεοῦ . 18. The hostile party (οἱἸουδαῖοι ,— those in authority among these variously-minded Pharisees), disappointed at his direct testimony against them, betake themselves to sifting more closely the evidence of the fact. The parents are summoned as witnesses. 19. The question is threefold, and in strict legal formality: ‘ Is this your son? Was he born blind? How is it that he now sees?’ 21. Notice the emphatic αὐτοῦ — ἡμεις — αὐτόν — αὐτός . 22. It is not said when this resolution was come to; and this also speaks for an interval between ch. 7. 8., and this incident. It could hardly have been before the council at the conclusion of ch. 7. ἀποσυν .] Probably the first of the three stages of Jewish excommunication,— the being shut out from the synagogue and household for thirty days, but without any anathema. The other two,— the repetition of the above, accompanied by a curse,— and final exclusion,— would be too harsh, and perhaps were not in use so early. Trench (Mirr. 299, edn. 2) regards the resolution not as a token that the Sanhedrim had pronounced Him a false Christ, but as shewing that they forbade a private man to anticipate their decision on this point by confessing Him (?). 24. δὸςδ . τ . θεῷ ] Not, ‘ Give God the praise’ (E. V.), i.e. ‘ the glory of thy healing:’ for the Pharisees want to overawe the man by their authority, and make him deny the miracle altogether. The words are a form of adjuration (see ref. Josh.), to tell the truth, q. d. ‘ Remember that you are in God’ s presence, and speak as unto Him.’ 25. ὤν ] See on ver. 8. The man shrewdly evades the inference and states again the simple fact. Bear in mind, that ὤν must here be strictly kept to its present sense, as being joined with a present verb βλέπω : the rule for the construction of a pres. part. being, that it is contemporaneous with the verb which rules the time of the sentence. So that we must render, not ‘ whereas I was blind, now I see,’ as E. V.: but as A.V.R., being a blind man [or, though a blind man], now I see. The shrewd and naï ve disposition of the man furnishes the key to the æ nigmatical expression. He puts it to them as the problem, the fact of which he knows for certain but the reason of which it was for them to solve, that he, whom they all knew as a blind man, now saw. So that the ὤν carries not so much present matter of fact, as common designation and title. 26. They perhaps are trying to shake his evidence,— or to make him state something which should bring out some stronger violation of the sabbath. 27. οὐκἠκούσατε must be in its special meaning of ‘ did not heed it.’ The latter clause is of course ironical: ‘ you seem so anxious to hear particulars about Him, that you must surely be intending to become His disciples.’ 29. λελάληκεν , not ἐλάλησεν , is important: it betokens the abiding finality of God’ s revelation to Moses, in their estimation: q. d. ‘ We stand by God’ s revelation to Moses.’ πόθεν — ‘ whether from God or not.’ But see ch. 7:27, 28, where a very different reason is given for disbelieving Him to be the Christ. 30. ἐντ . γάρ is well expressed in E. V., Why herein is &c. Cf. Klotz, p. 242: “ γάρ respicit ad ea quæ alter antea dixerat, et continet cum affirmatione conclusionem, quæ ex rebus ita comparatis facienda sit.” ὑμεῖς , you, whose business it is to know such things. 31. He expresses a general popular conviction, that one who could do these things, must be a pious man: and (ver. 32) very eminently so, since this miracle was unprecedented. Ver. 32, says Meyer, is the minor proposition: ver. 33, the conclusion; both in a popular form. 33. οὐδέν , nothing of this kind, much less such a thing as this. 34. See on ver. 2. ὅλος , altogether,— deeply and entirely, as thy infirmity proved. “ They forget that the two charges,— one that he had never been born blind, and so was an impostor,— the other, that he bore the mark of God’ s anger in a blindness that reached back to his birth,— will not agree together.” (Trench, Mirr. 305, edn. 2, note.) ἐξέβ .] They excommunicated him: see on ver. 22. It cannot merely mean, ‘ they cast him out of the court’ (Chrys., Mald., Grot., Fritzsche, Tholuck, Meyer); see next verse, where it would hardly be stated that Jesus heard of it, unless it had been some public formal act. 35. “ Tune ille es, qui propter fidem in Jesum quem dicunt Christum, acerbitatem nostrorum magistrorum expertus est? An tu post has molestias etiamnum in filium Dei credis?” Lampe in loc. 36. This υἱὸςτ . θεοῦ surpasses his present comprehension: and therefore, true to his simple and guileless character, he asks for further information about Him. καὶτίς ] See reff. and Mark 10:26. 37. These words καὶἑώρακαςαὐτ . serve to remind the man of the benefit he has received, and to awaken in him the liveliest gratitude: compare Luke 2:30. They do not refer to a former seeing, when he was healed: this was the first time that he had seen his Benefactor. 39. There seems to be an interval between the last verse and this, and the narrative appears to be taken up again at some subsequent time when this miracle became again the subject of discourse. The blind man had recovered sight in two senses,— bodily and spiritual. And as our Lord always treats of the spiritual as paramount, including the bodily, so here He proceeds to speak of spiritual sight. κρῖμα , the effect of κρίσις , not merely distinction, but judgment; the following out of the divine εὐδοκία , Matthew 11:25, Matthew 11:26. “ We are all, according to the spirit of nature, no better than persons born blind; and to know and confess this our blindness, is our first and only true sight, out of which the grace of the Lord can afterwards bring about a complete receiving of sight. The ‘ becoming blind,’ on the other hand, is partly an ironical expression for remaining blind, but partly also has a real meaning in the increasing darkening and hardening which takes place through unbelief.” (Stier, iv. 568; 475, edn. 2.) The βλέποντες here answer to the ἰσχύοντες and δίκαιοι of Matthew 9:12, Matthew 9:13: see note there. 40. They ask the question, not understanding the words of Jesus in a bodily sense, but well aware of their meaning, and scornfully rejoining, ‘ Are then we meant by these blind, we, the leaders of the people?’ 41. The distinction in expression between the two clauses must be carefully borne in mind. Our Lord is referring primarily to the unbelief of the Pharisees and their rejection of Him. And He says, ‘ If ye were really blind (not, ‘ confessed yourselves blind:’ Kuinoel, Stier, De Wette), ye would not have incurred guilt; but now ye say, “ We see;” ye believe ye have the light, and boast that ye know and use the light; and therefore your guilt abideth, remaineth on you.’ Observe there is a middle clause understood, between ‘ ye would never have incurred guilt,’ and ‘ your guilt remaineth;’ and that is, ‘ ye have incurred guilt;’ which makes it necessary to take the λέγετεὅτιβλέπομεν as in a certain sense implying βλέπετε : viz. ‘ by the Scriptures being committed to you, by God’ s grace, which ought to have led you to faith in me.’ Chap. 10:1-21. Of true and false shepherds. Jesus the good Shepherd. This discourse is connected with the preceding miracle; and the conduct of the Pharisees towards the man who had been blind, seems to have given occasion to this description of false shepherds, which again introduces the testimony of Jesus to Himself as the true Shepherd. So that, as Meyer remarks, the paragraph should begin at ch. 9:35 properly. The more we study carefully this wonderful Gospel, the more we shall see that the idea of this close connexion is never to be summarily dismissed as imaginary, and that our Evangelist never “ passes without notice to an entirely different and disjointed occurrence or discourse,” as I stated in some of my earlier editions. See on the whole subject of the parable, Jeremiah 23:1-4: Eze_34: Zechariah 11:4-17. These opening verses (to ver. 5) set forth the distinction between false and true shepherds. Then (vv. 7, 8, 9) He brings in Himself, as the door, by which both shepherds and sheep enter the fold. Then (ver. 10) He returns to the imagery of the first verses, and sets forth Himself as the Good Shepherd; and the rest (to ver. 18) is occupied with the results and distinctions dependent on that fact. 1. τὴναὐλ .] ὁπεριτετειχισμένοςκ . ὕπαιθροςτόπος (Phavorinus, Lü cke ii. 403); just answering, except in this being a permanent enclosure, to our fold. This fold is the visible Church of God, primarily, as His people Israel were His peculiar fold; the possibility of there being other folds has been supposed to be alluded to in ver. 16: but see note there. The terms in this first part are general, and apply to all leaders of God’ s people; in ver. 1, to those who enter that office without having come in by the door (i.e. Christ, in the large sense, in which the O.T. faithful looked to and trusted in Him, as the covenant promise of Israel’ s God); and in ver. 2 to those who do enter this way; and whosoever does is the shepherd of the sheep (not emphatic,— not, ‘ the Good Shepherd,’ as below, ver. 11, but here it is merely predicated of one who thus enters, that he is the shepherd of that particular fold: it is the attribute of a shepherd thus to enter). The sheep throughout this parable are not the mingled multitude of good and bad; but the real sheep, the faithful, who are, what all in the fold should be. The false sheep (goats, Matthew 25:32) do not appear; for it is not the character of the flock, but that of the shepherd, and the relation between him and his sheep, which is here prominent. 3. Perhaps the θυρωρός should not be too much pressed as significant; but certainly the Holy Spirit is especially He who opens the door to the shepherds: see frequent uses of this symbolism by the Apostles, Acts 14:27: 1 Corinthians 16:9: 2 Corinthians 2:12: Colossians 4:3;— and instances of the θυρωρός shutting the door, Acts 16:6, Acts 16:7. (So Theodorus Heracleota, and Stier, iv. 482, edn. 2.) τὰπρόβ . τ . φων . αὐτ . ἀκ .] The voice of every such true shepherd is heard (heeded, understood) by the sheep (generally): and he calls by name his own sheep, that portion of the great flock entrusted to him, and leads them out to pasture, as his office is. This distinction between τὰπρόβ . and τὰἴδιαπρόβ . has given rise to exegetical and doctrinal mistakes, from not observing ποιμήν above. It has been imagined that Christ is here spoken of, and that therefore these two descriptions of sheep must be different, and so the whole exposition has been confused. Even Stier has fallen into this mistake. 4. When he has led forth to pasture all his sheep (there shall not an hoof be left behind), he goes before them (see The Land and the Book, p. 202); in his teaching pointing out the way to them; they follow him, because they know his voice; his words and teaching are familiar to them. But observe that the expression here becomes again more general; not τὰἴδ . πρ ., but τὰπρ . as in ver. 3. The sheep know the voice of every true shepherd. 5. So that the ἀλλότριος is not the shepherd of another section of the flock, but an alien: the λῃστής of ver. 1;— and τῶνἀλλ . is generic, as in E. V. Meyer takes it as merely meaning a stranger, one who is not their Shepherd: but this hardly seems strong enough for the context. 6. παροιμία is not = παραβολή , as so generally set down. This is not properly a parable: but rather a parabolic allegory. The parable requires narrative to set it forth; and John relates no such. The right word for παροιμία would be allegory: etymologically it is, any saying diverging from the common way of speech : cf. Meyer. We have other examples in ch. 15:1 ff. and in Matthew 9:37, Matthew 9:38. 7. What follows is not so much an exposition, as an expansion of the allegory. The key to this verse is the right understanding of what went before. Bear in mind, that vv. 1-5 were of shepherds in general. But these shepherds themselves go into and out of the fold by the same door as the sheep: and Christ is that door; the Door of the sheep: the one door both for sheep and shepherds, into the fold (see ἡθύρα , absol. ver. 9), into God’ s Church, to the Father. 8. I believe that the right sense of these words, ὅσοιἦλθονπρὸἐμοῦ , has not been apprehended by any of the Commentators. First, they can only be honestly understood of time: all who came before me (not, “ without regard to me,” Olsh. &c., nor “ passing by me as the door,” Camer., nor “ instead of me,” Lampe, &c.: nor “ pressing before me,” ch. 5:7, which would have been ἔρχονται , not ἦλθ .: nor “ before taking the trouble to find me, the door,” Stier, iv. 492, edn. 2: nor any other of the numerous shifts which have been adopted). What pretended teachers then came before Christ? Remember the connexion of these discourses. He has taught the Jews that Abraham and the Prophets entered by Him (ch. 8:56): but He has set in strong opposition to Himself and His, them (these Jews) and their father, the Devil (ib. ver. 44). He was “ the first thief who clomb into God’ s fold;” and all his followers are here spoken of inclusively in the language of the allegory, as coming in by and with him. His was the first attempt to lead human nature, before Christ came; before the series of dispensations of grace began, in which pasture and life is offered to man by Him. Meyer understands the Pharisees, &c. who taught the people before Christ appeared as the Door of the sheep: but this does not seem to reach the depth of the requirements of the saying. εἰσίν , not ἦσαν , because their essential nature as belonging to and being of the evil one is set forth, and the inclusion of these present Pharisees in their ranks. ἀλλ ʼ οὐκ … ] This of course cannot be understood absolutely,— ‘ the sheep never for one moment listened to them;’ but, did not listen to them in the sense of becoming their disciples eventually. So that the fall of our first Parents would be no exception to this; whom of all men we must conclude, by the continuing grace and mercy of God to them after that fall, to have been of His real sheep. And since then, the same is true; however the sheep may for a while listen to these false shepherds, they do not hear them, so as to follow them. Those who do, belong not to the true flock. Ver. 9 expands and fixes ver. 7. “ Non est salutaris aditus in ecclesiam, nisi per me, sive pastor esse velis, sive ovis.” Erasmus, Paraphr. See Numbers 27:16, Numbers 27:17. The sequel of the verse shews that this combined meaning is the true one. Meyer, who understands it all of shepherds alone, finds great difficulty in the interpretation of the latter words: “ shall go in and out before the sheep, and find pasture for them.” Ver. 10 shews the gracious intent of the Saviour in this;— to give life, and in abundance. This verse forms the transition from Him as ἡθύρα , to Him as ὁποιμήν . He is here set in opposition to ὁκλέπτης (see on ver. 8), and thus insensibly passes into the place of a ποιμήν , who has been hitherto thus opposed. Then the ζωὴνἔχωσιν binds on to νομὴνεὑρήσει — and καὶπερισ . ἔχ .: q. d. not merely as a door to pass through, but actively, abundantly, to bestow abundance of life. We are thus prepared for (ver. 11) the announcement of Himself as ὁποιμὴνὁκαλός — the great antagonist of ὁκλέπτης — the pattern and Head of all good shepherds, as he of all thieves and robbers: the Messiah, in His best known and most loving office: cf. Ezekiel 34:11-16, Ezekiel 34:23; Ezekiel 37:24, and Isaiah 40:11. But He is ὁπ . ὁκ . in this verse, as having most eminently the qualities of a good shepherd, one of which is to lay down His life for the sheep. These words here are not so much a prophecy, as a declaration, implying however that which ver. 15 asserts explicitly. 12. The imagery is here again somewhat changed. The false shepherds are here compared to hirelings, i.e. those who serve merely for gain; the μισθωτός who fulfils the character implied by the word. The idea is brought in by τὴνψυχ . αὐτ . τίθ . ὑπὲρτ . πρ ., which introduces a time of danger, when the true and false shepherds are distinguished. τ . λύκον ] The purposes of this wolf are the same as those of the thief in ver. 10, and in the allegory he is the same;— the great Foe of the sheep of Christ. Lü cke and De Wette deny this, and hold ‘ any enemies of the theocracy’ to be meant;— but no deep view of the parable will be content with this,— see Matthew 7:15, where the λύκοιἅρπαγες are ψευδοπροφῆται , the κλέπταικ . λῃσταί of ver. 8;— and their chief and father would therefore be ὁλύκος , just as ὁποιμήν is the Shepherd. 14, 15. The knowledge of His sheep here spoken of is more than the mere knowing by name: it is a knowledge corresponding to the Father’ s knowledge of Him;— i.e. entire, perfect, all-comprehensive: and their knowledge of Him corresponds to His of the Father,— i.e. is intimate, direct, and personal: both being bound together by holy and inseparable Love. Beware of rendering [the former clause of] ver. 15 as in E. V. as an independent sentence, ‘ As my Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father:’ it is merely the sequel to ver. 14, and should stand, as the Father knoweth me and I know the Father. ὑπὲρτ . προβ .] for those my sheep— not, for all; that, however true, is not the point brought out here: the Lord lays down His life strictly and properly, and in the depths of the Divine counsel, for those who are His sheep. 16. The ἄλλαπρόβ . are the Gentiles;— not the dispersion of the Jews, who were already in God’ s αὐλή . By these wonderful words, as by those in Acts 18:10, and by the conclusion of Mat_25. (see notes there), our Lord shews that, dark and miserable as the Gentile world was, He had sheep even there. Observe they are not in other folds, but scattered: see ch. 11:52. Cf. also Ephesians 2:14 ff. δεῖμεἀγ .… ] i.e. in the purpose and covenant of the Father. The Lord speaks of His bringing them, and their hearing His voice: meaning that His servants in His name and by His power would accomplish this work. Admirably illustrative of the converse method of speaking which He employs Matthew 25:40, Matthew 25:45. The μίαποίμνη is remarkable— not μίααὐλή , as characteristically, but erroneously rendered in E. V.:— not one fold, but one flock; no one exclusive enclosure of an outward church,— but one flock, all knowing the one Shepherd and known of Him. On εἷςποιμήν compare Hebrews 13:20. 17. The λαλεῖνἐνπαροιμίαις is now over, and He speaks plainly,— My Father. In this wonderful verse lies the mystery of the love of the Father for the Son;— because the Son has condescended to the work of humiliation, and to earn the crown through the cross . The ἵνα here is strictly τελικόν ,— in order that. “ Without this purpose in view,” says Stier (iv. 504, edn. 2), “ the Death of Christ would neither be lawful nor possible.” 18. The truth of this voluntary rendering up was shewn by His whole sufferings, from the falling of His enemies to the ground in the garden (ch. 18:6) to His last words, παρατίθεμαιτὸπν . μου , Luke 23:46 (see note there). His resurrection also was eminently His own work, by virtue of the Spirit of the Father dwelling in and filling Him: the ἐξουσία in both these cases being the ἐντολή , appointment, ordinance of the Father, from the counsel of whose will the whole mediatorial office of Christ sprung: see ch. 12:49. 19-21. The concluding words bind this discourse to the miracle of ch. 9, though not necessarily in immediate connexion. 22-39. Discourse at the Feast of Dedication. It may be, that Jesus remained at, or in the neighbourhood of, Jerusalem during the interval (two months) between the Feast of Tabernacles and that of the Dedication. Had He returned to Galilee, we should have expected some mention of it. Still, by the words ἐντοῖςἹεροσολύμοις , it would seem as if a fresh period and a new visit began; for why should such a specification be made, if the narrative proceeded continuously? See on Luke 9:51 ff. 22. This feast had become usual since the time when Judas Maccabæ us purified the temple from the profanations of Antiochus. It was held on Chisleu (December) 25, and seven following days: see 1 Macc. 4:41-59: 2 Macc. 10:1-8: Jos. Antt. xii. 7. 7. χειμ . ἦν ] it was winter (not ‘ stormy weather,’ as Lampe, .: Matthew 16:3): see above. The notice is inserted to explain to Gentile readers the reason of our Lord’ s walking in Solomon’ s portico. This latter was on the east side of the temple, called also by Jos. στοὰἀνατολική . He says, Antt. xx. 9. 7, that it was an original work of Solomon, which had remained from the former temple. 24. ψυχὴναἴρεις is generally explained, ‘ keep us in doubt,’ αἰωρεῖς , ἀναρτᾷςμεταξὺπίστεωςκ . ἀπιστίας , But there is some question whether ψ . αἴρ . is ever so used. In Josephus, it signifies ‘ to uplift the soul,’ ‘ raise the courage;’ ἐπὶτὸνκίνδ . τὰςψ . ἠρμένοι , Antt. iii. 2. 3; 5. 1. So also Aquila, Proverbs 19:18, πρὸςτὸθανατῶσαιαὐτὸνμὴἄρῃςψ . σου . See also Psalms 85:4; 142:8 (LXX). These usages, however, as all the examples adduced in the ., are confined to the act of a man on his own soul: when the term applies to effects produced on another, it seems to imply any strong excitement of mind, whether for hope or fear. How long dost thou excite our minds? 25. He had often told them, in unmistakable descriptions of Himself; see ch. 5:19; 8:36, 56, 58, &c. &c. But the great reference here is to His works, as in ver. 37. Observe the sharp contrast of ἐγώ and ὑμεῖς . 26. The difficulty of καθὼςεἶπονὑμῖν is considerable warrant for its genuineness: and it comes much more naturally with this than with the following verse. I believe it to refer more to the whole allegory, than to any explicit saying of this kind; and this is shewn to my mind by the following words in ver. 27:— the minor proposition, ‘ but ye hear not my voice,’ being understood. This was a corollary from the allegory, and thus it might be said καθὼςεἶπονὑμῖν . This reference to the allegory some two months after it was spoken, has been used by the rationalists as an argument against the authenticity of the narrative. But, as Meyer observes, it in reality implies that the conflict with the Jewish authorities is here again taken up after that interval, during which it had not broken out. 27-29. This leads to a further description of these sheep. The form of the sentence is a climax; rising through the ἐγὼδίδωμι and ἐκτ . χ . μου , to ὁπατήρμουὃδέδωκένμοι and ἐκτ . χ . τοῦπατρός . Then the apparent diversity of the two expressions, ἐκτ . χ . μου and ἐκτ . χ . τοῦπατ . μου , gives occasion to the assertion in ver. 30, that Christ and the Father are one; one in essence primarily, but therefore also one in working, and power, and in will. ἓνκατὰδύναμιν , ἤγουνταυτοδύναμοι , Euthym.; who adds, εἰδὲἓνκατὰδύναμιν , ἓνἄρακαὶκατὰτὴνθεότητακαὶοὐσίανκαὶφύσιν . This certainly is implied in the words, and so the Jews understood them, ver. 33. Bengel remarks after Augustine, “ per sumus refutatur Sabellius, per unum, Arius.” It is perhaps more than is actually contained in the words: but, as Meyer says, they are founded on the unity of essence of the Son and the Father, and so presuppose the homousian doctrine. ἕν , not εἷς : not personally one, but essentially. 31. i.e. as having spoken blasphemy, Leviticus 24:10 ff. “ ἐβάστασαν , sustulerunt (Vulg.)— they lifted up in the air, in act to throw at him. It is more than αἴρειν , ch. 8:59. Cf. Hom. Od. λ . 594 , Polyb. 15:26. 3 .” Meyer. 32. See Mark 7:37. ἐκτοῦπατρόςμου , because (cf. vv. 37, 38) He Himself proceeded forth from the Father, and the Father wrought in Him. ἔδειξα , because they were part of the manifestation of Himself as the Son of God. λιθάζετε , are ye stoning (preparing to stone) Me? 33. θεόν = ἴσοντῷθ ., ch. 5:18. 34. νόμος here is in its widest acceptation,— the whole O.T.,— as ch. 12:34; 15:25. The Psalm (82) is directed against the injustice and tyranny of judges (not, the Gentile rulers of the world (De Wette), nor, the angels (Bleek)) in Israel. And in the Psalm reference is made by εἶπα to previous places of Scripture where judges are so called, viz. Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:9, Exodus 22:28. 35. πρὸςοὓςὁλόγ . τ . θεοῦἐγ ., to whom God (in those passages) spoke. We can hardly build on this passage, as Luthardt has done, a theory as to the distinction between those to whom ὁλόγοςτοῦθεοῦ came merely in utterance, and those to whom He came in Person. See below on ver. 36. The expression, καὶοὐδύν . λυθ . ἡγρ . , implies, ‘ and if you cannot explain this expression away,— if it cannot mean nothing,— for it rests on the testimony of God’ s word,’ … 36. The argument is à minori ad majus. If in any sense they could be called gods,— how much more properly He, whom &c. They were only officially so called, only λεγόμενοιθεοί — but He, the only One, sealed and hallowed by the Father, and sent into the world (the aorists refer to the time of the Incarnation), is essentially θεός inasmuch as He is υἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ . The deeper aim of this argument is, to shew them that the idea of man and God being one, was not alien from their O.T. spirit, but set forth there in types and shadows of Him, the real God-Man. Observe ὑμεῖς , set in emphatic contrast to the authority of Scripture,— as ὃνὁπατὴρἡγίασεν … is to ἐκείνους above. 37, 38. Having put the charge of blasphemy aside, our Lord again has recourse to the testimony of His works, at which He hinted ver. 32; and here, to their character, as admitted by them in ver. 33. ‘ If they bear not the character of the Father, believe Me not: but if they do (which even yourselves admit), though ye may hate and disbelieve Me, recognize the unquestionable testimony of the works:— that ye may be led on to the higher faith of the unity of Myself and the Father.’ γνῶτεκ . γινώσκητε ] The distinction lies in the force of the present as denoting the continuance of a state, whereas the aorist implies an act of a moment. The nearest approach to it in English would perhaps be, that ye may perceive (the introductory act) and know (the abiding state). This distinction between the tenses not being appreciated, γινώσκητε has been awkwardly changed to πιστεύσητε . Cf. Plato, Legg. viii. p. 849 Α , τῶνδὲἐνἄστεικατὰτὰαὐτὰἐπιμεληθῆναικαὶἐπιμελεῖσθαιτὴντῶνἀστυνόμωνἀρχήν . 39. The attempt to stone Him seems to have been abandoned, but (see ch. 7:30) they tried again to take Him into custody: and, as before, He (miraculously?) withdrew Himself from them. 40-42. Jesus departs to Bethany beyond Jordan, and is there believed on by many. 40. See ch. 1:28 and note. 41. The locality reminds them of John and his testimony. The remark seems to have a double tendency;— to relate their now confirmed persuasion, that though John did not fulfil their expectations by shewing a sign or working miracles, yet he was a true prophet, and really, as he professed, the forerunner of this Person, who in consequence must be, what John had declared Him to he, the Messiah. And (ver. 42) the result followed:— many believed on Him. “ The Ἰωάννης repeated, ver. 42, belongs to the simplicity of the speech, which is reproduced literatim, and expresses the honour paid by the people to the holy man whose memory still lived among them.” Meyer. Chap. 11, 12. Jesus, delivered to death, the Resurrection, and the Life, and the Judgment. 11:1-44. The raising of Lazarus. On the omission of this, the chief of our Lord’ s miracles, by the three other Evangelists, see Prolegg. ch. 1 § v. 1. 1. δέ , not transitional,— but expressing a contrast to the sojourn in Peræ a, and thus conveying the reason why our Lord’ s retirement (see ch. 10:40) was broken in upon. Meyer (but not in edns. 2, 3), and Greswell, maintain that ἀπό means present residence,— ἐκ , nativity. But this distinction is wholly untenable: and all the inferences drawn from it in Mr. G.’ s dissertation (vol. ii. p. 481 ff.) fall to the ground (see reff., especially last). Bethany is designated as ‘ the village of Martha and Mary,’ to distinguish it from that Bethany beyond Jordan, which has just been alluded to (not named, perhaps to avoid the confusion), ch. 10:40. Mary and Martha are mentioned as already well known from the current apostolic teaching (see Prolegg. to John, § ii. 11). 2. Another reference ιο a fact which, as our Lord prophesied, was known wherever the gospel was preached. This reference containing, as it does, the expression τὸνκύριον (= our Lord), q. d. ‘ as we all well know,’ — is a striking illustration of that prophecy. John himself relates the occurrence, ch. 12:3, being necessary for the course of his narrative. 3. The message (see vv. 21, 32) evidently was to request the Lord to come and heal him: and implies that the sickness was of a dangerous kind. 4. The only right understanding of this answer, and our Lord’ s whole proceeding here is,— that He knew and foresaw all from the first,— as well the termination of Lazarus’ s sickness and his being raised again, as the part which this miracle would bear in bringing about the close of His own ministry. αὕτηἡἀσθ .] “ Ostendit Christus, notum sibi, quod tanquam nescienti indicabatur.” Grot. οὐκἔστ . πρὸςθάν .] Its result as regards Lazarus will not be death (see Matthew 9:24 , and notes):— but (see ch. 2:11; 9:3) it has a higher purpose,— the glory of God;— the glorification, by its means, of the Son of God. And this δοξασθῇ — how was it accomplished? By this miracle leading to his death,— which in John’ s diction is so frequently implied in that word. (It need hardly be remarked, with Olsh. and Trench, that the glorifying of the Son of God in Lazarus himself is subordinately implied. Men are not mere tools, but temples, of God.) It is doubtful whether these words were the answer sent back to the sisters, or were said to the disciples. In either case, they evidently carried a double meaning, as again those in ver. 11. Ver. 5 explains ὃνφιλεῖς . Observe ἠγάπα here; while we have ὃνφιλεῖς in ver. 3, where there was no possibility of misunderstanding the import: cf. note on Matthew 5:46, and Trench, New Test. Synonyms, p. 45. 6. οὖν connects with ver. 4, ‘ Having then said this,— although He loved, &c., He abode,’ &c.: μέν pointing on to ἔπειταμ . τ . in next verse. In all probability Lazarus was dead, when He spoke the words ver. 4;— or at all events before the messenger returned. 7. If the οὖν in ver. 6 referred to this verse, the connexion must have been made by καὶμετὰτ .: the ἔπειτα cuts off all connexion (Galatians 1:18), and throws back the οὖν as explained above. The question, why our Lord did not go at once on receiving the message, is not to be answered by any secondary reasons, such as the trial of the faith of those concerned, or the pressing nature of His own ministry in Peræ a,— but by referring back to ver. 4,— because, for the glory of God, He would have the miracle happen as it did and no otherwise. Compare Meyer. 8. νῦν = ἀρτίως — but now. ἐζήτουν , were seeking: ὑπάγεις , art thou going? 9, 10. Our Lord’ s answer is first general, vv. 9, 10,— then particular, ver. 11. οὐχὶδώδ .] See on ch. 9:4, where the same thought is expressed. But here it is carried further,— ‘ I have a fixed time during which to work, appointed me by my Father; during that time I fear no danger, I walk in His light, even as the traveller in the light of this world by day: and (by inference) ye too are safe, walking in this light, which light to you is Myself,— walking with Me:— whosoever walks without this light,— without Me,— without the light of the divine purpose illumining the path of duty, stumbles,— because he has no light in him.’ In him, for ‘ the light of the body is the eye,’ and the light must be in us in order to guide us. Shut it out by blinding the eyes, and we are in darkness. So too of spiritual light. The twelve-hour division of the day was common among the Jews by this time, being probably borrowed from Babylon (οἱἝλληνεςτὰδυώδεκαμέρεατῆςἡμέραςπαρὰΒαβυλωνίωνἔμαθον , Herod. ii. 109). As the day in Palestine varied in length from 14h. 12m. in summer to 9h. 48m. in winter, these hours must also have varied considerably in length at the different seasons . I may remark that this verse refutes the fancy of Townson and others, also upheld by Bp. Wordsworth (who passes this verse without remark), that St. John adopts the so-called Asiatic method of reckoning time: see on ch. 1:40; 4:6 . Notice δώδεκα emphatically prefixed, implying that though the conflict was far spent, there were yet more hours of daylight, and it could not yet be said ἐλήλυθενἡὥρα , ch. 17:1. Cf. ch. 7:30; 8:20; 12:27: and consult Meyer’ s able and exhaustive note. 11. The special reason for going, which the disciples appear not to have borne in mind, having probably supposed from ver. 4 that Lazarus would recover. ὁφίλ . ἡμ .] “ Quanta humanitate Jesus amicitiam suam cum discipulis communicat!” Bengel. And the ἡμῶν gives a reason why they should go too. This κεκοίμ . might have recalled to three at least of the disciples that other saying, Matthew 9:24. But the former οὐπρόςθάν . had not been understood,— and that error ruled in their minds. ἐξυπνισθῆναιοὐχρὴλέγειν , ἀλλ ʼ ἀφυπνισθῆναι . Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 224. 12. They evidently understand the sleep announced to them by Jesus as a physical fact,— if he has fallen asleep,— and a token of a favourable crisis, and σωθήσεται (as in E. V. he shall do well), = his recovery,— will probably be the result. 15. “ Notice that Jesus rejoices not over the sad event itself, but that He was not there, which might prove salutary to the disciples’ faith.” Meyer. The ἵναπιστ . is not to be taken as the great end of the miracle (expressed in ver. 4), but the end as regarded them. Beware of the imaginary ecbatic ἵνα , which does not exist. ἀλλά breaks off: “ indicat, satis argumentorum allatum esse.” Herm. ad Viger. p. 811. 16. θωμᾶς , in Aramaic ה ּ א ֹ מ ָ א = δίδυμος . The remark means, Let us also go , that we may die with Him (not, with Lazarus, as Grot.). This is in exact accord with the character of Thomas, as shewn in ch. 14:5; 20:25;— ever ready to take the dark view, but deeply attached to his Lord. 17. Jesus remained two days after the receipt of the message: one day the journey would occupy: so that Lazarus must have died on the day of the messenger’ s being sent, and have been buried that evening, according to Jewish custom: see ver. 39, and Acts 5:6-10. 18. The geographical notice is given, to account for the occurrence detailed in the next verse. A stadium = ⅛ of a Roman mile. Meyer remarks, that ἦν does not necessarily imply that the places no longer existed when the Apostle wrote, but may arise from the word occurring in context with a history which is past. So Xen. Anab. i. 4. 9, αἱδὲκῶμαιἐναἷςἐσκήνουνΠαρυσάτιδοςἦσαν . But seeing that John alone uses this form of designation (cf. ch. 18:1; 19:41), and that he probably wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, it is more natural (as Meyer himself confesses) to explain the past tense by his regarding Jerusalem and its neighbourhood as laid waste at the time when he published his Gospel. 19. Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.) gives an account of the ceremonies practised during the thirty days of mourning. The . reading, τὰςπερὶΜ . κ . Μ ., would mean Martha and Mary and their friends— the women mourning with them. The expression is foreign to N.T. diction elsewhere, and might be used here for decorum, seeing that they were men who came: or as indicating that the house was one of large hospitality and acquaintance. 20. The behaviour of the two sisters is quite in accordance with their character, Luke 10:38-42: and thus we have a most interesting point of connexion between two Gospels so widely various in their contents and character. Stier thinks (v. 19, edn. 2), as also Trench (Mirr. 398, edn. 2), that Mary did not hear of the approach of Jesus, and that we must not bring the characters to bear on this case (?). 21. This saying has evidently been the leading thought of the four days since their brother’ s death. Mary repeats it, ver. 32. 22. She seems to express some expectation of the raising of her brother; but it is too great a thing for her to venture to mention:— possibly she had not dared to form the thought fully, but had some vague feeling after help, such as she knew He would give. I can hardly see, as some have done, a “ verbum minus dignum” (Bengel) in the form of her expression, ὅσαἂναἰτήσῃτὸνθ . κ .τ .λ . It was said in the simplicity of her faith, which, it is true, was not yet a fully ripened faith: but it differs little from our Lord’ s own words, ver. 41. The repetition of ὁθεός after τὸνθεόν is to be noticed, as expressive of her faith in the unity of purpose and action between Jesus and God. 23. I believe these words of our Lord to contain no allusion to the immediate restoration of Lazarus; but to be pæ dagogically used, to lead on to the requisite faith in her mind. I have to learn whether ἀναστήσεται in this direct absolute sense could be used of his recall into human life. 24. She understands the words rightly, but gently repels the insufficient comfort of his ultimate resurrection. 25, 26. These words, as Stier observes, are the central point of the history; the great testimony to Himself, of which the subsequent miracle is the proof. The intention of the saying seems to have been, to awaken in Martha the faith that He could raise her brother from the dead, in its highest and proper form. This He does by announcing Himself as ‘ the Resurrection’ (q. d.— that resurrection in the last day shall be only by my Power, and therefore I can raise now as well), and more than that, the Life itself: so that he that believeth in me (= Lazarus, in her mind), even though he have died (ἀποθάνῃ , past) shall live; and he that liveth and believeth in me, shall never die: i.e. ‘ faith in Me is the source of life, both here and hereafter; and those who have it, have Life, so that they shall never die;’ physical death being overlooked and disregarded, in comparison with that which is really and only death. Compare 4 Macc. 7:19. The ζῶν must be (against Lampe, Olshausen, and Stier) taken of physical life, for it stands opposed to κἂνἀποθάνῃ . ὁπιστ . εἰςἐμέ is the subject of both clauses; in the former it is said that he κἂνἀποθ ., ζήσεται : in the second, that he ζῶν , οὐμὴἀποθάνῃ . Olshausen’ s remark, that ζῶν and ἀποθ . in the second clause must both be physical, if one is, is wrong; the antithesis consisting, in both clauses, in the reciprocation of the two senses, physical and spiritual; and serving in the latter clause, as a key hereafter to the condition of Lazarus, when raised from the dead. There can hardly be any reference in ver. 26 to the state of the living faithful at the Lord’ s coming (πάντεςοὐκοιμηθησόμεθα , πάντεςδὲἀλλαγησόμεθα , 1 Corinthians 15:51),— for although the Apostle there, speaking of believers primarily and especially, uses the first person,— the saying would be equally true of unbelievers, on whose bodies the change from to τὸφθαρτόν to ἀφθαρσία will equally pass, and of whom the οὐἀποθάνῃ here would be equally true,— whereas the saying is one setting forth an exclusive privilege of ὁζῶνκ . πιστεύωνεἰςἐμέ . Besides, such an interpretation would set aside all reference to Lazarus, or to present circumstances. 27. Her confession, though embracing the great central point of the truth in the last verse, does not enter fully into it. Nor does she (ver. 40) seem to have adequately apprehended its meaning. ὅτιμὲνμεγάλαπερὶἑαυτοῦεἶπεν , ἔγνω · πῶςδὲταῦταεἶπεν , ἠγνόησε · διὰτοῦτοἕτερονἐρωτηθεῖσα , ἕτερονἀποκρίνεται , ἐλώ , I, for my part: πεπίστευκα , have convinced myself, and firmly believe.’ ὁἐρχ .] Who should come: see reff. 28. Her calling her sister is characteristic of one who (as in Luke 10:40) had not been much habituated herself to listen to His instructions, but knew this to be the delight of Mary. Besides this, she evidently has hopes raised, though of a very faint and indefinite kind. προσδοκήσασάτιἀγαθὸνἀπὸτῶνλόγωναὐτοῦ . Euthym. λάθρα ] ἵναμὴοἱπαρόντεςἸουδαῖοιτοῦτογνῶσι , καὶἴσωςκαταμηνύσωσιναὐτὸντοῖςἐπιβουλεύουσιν . Euthym. This fear was realized (ver. 46). φωνεῖσε ] This is not recorded. Stier thinks that the Lord had not actually asked for her, but that Martha sees such an especial fitness for her hearing in the words of vv. 25, 26, that she uses this expression. But is it not somewhat too plainly asserted, to mean only calling by inference? Meyer regards the φωνεῖσε as proving it to have been a fact. 31. ἵνακλ . ἐκεῖ — as is the custom even now in the East [see an affecting account in Lamartine’ s, Pilgrimage to the Holy Land. English Translation, vol. ii. pp. 76-78]. 32. The words of Mary are fewer, and her action more impassioned, than those of her sister: she was perhaps interrupted by the arrival of the Jews: cf. ver. 33. Kü hner, Gram. § 627, Anm. 4, remarks that when the genitive of the enclitic personal pronoun is prefixed to its substantive, a slight sense of the dativus commodi is given: “ non mihi frater mortuus esset.” 33. In explaining this difficult verse, two things must be borne in mind: (1) that ἐμβριμάομαι can bear but one meaning, that of indignor (“ infremuit,” Vulg.),— the expression of indignation and rebuke, not of sorrow. This has been here acknowledged by all the expositors who have paid any attention to the usage of the word. (2) That both from ὠςεἶδεν , &c.,— from καὶἐτάραξ . ἑαυτ ., and ver. 35,— the feeling in the Lord was clearly one of rising sympathy, which vented itself at last in tears. These two things being premised, I think the meaning to be, that Jesus, with the tears of sympathy already rising and overcoming His speech, checked them, so as to be able to speak the words following. I would read ἐνεβρ . τ . πν ., καὶἐτ . ἑαυ ., καὶεἶπεν in immediate connexion, as expressing the temporary check given to the flow of His tears,— the effort need to utter the following question. And I would thus divest the self-restraint of all stoical and unworthy character, and consider it as merely physical, requiring indeed an act of the will, and a self-troubling,— a complication of feeling,— but implying no deliberate disapproval of the rising emotion, which indeed immediately after is suffered to prevail. What minister has not, when burying the dead in the midst of a weeping family, felt the emotion and made the effort here described? And surely this was one of the things in which He was made like unto His brethren. Thus Bengel: “ Ita Jesus austeriore affectu lacrymas hic cohibuit, et mox ver. 38 abrupit. Eoque major earum fuit auctoritas.” Meyer’ s explanation deserves mention: that our Lord was indignant at seeing the Jews, His bitter enemies, mingling their hypocritical tears (Crocodilsthranen) with the true ones of the bereaved sister. But, not to say how unworthy this seems of the Person and occasion, the explanation will find no place in ver. 38: for surely the question of the Jews in ver. 37 is not enough to justify it. Still perhaps any contribution to the solution of this difficult word is not to be summarily rejected. τῷπν . is not the dat. after ἐνεβρ ., ‘ rebuked His spirit,’ — but in Spirit: see ἐνἑαυτῷ ver. 38. Indignation over unbelief and sin, and death the fruit of sin, doubtless lay in the background; but to see it in the words (with Olsh., Stier, and Trench), seems unnatural. ἐτάραξενἑαυτόν is understood by Meyer, and perhaps rightly, as describing an outward motion of the body,— He shuddered: and so Euthym.: διέσεισε (not, as Bloomf. somewhat confidently asserts, a blunder of the scribes for διεσείσθη , but the (so-called) intrans. sense of σείω , in which it was used of this very act of ‘ shaking’ bodily: of. Xen. Cyneg. iii. 4, αἱδὲτὰὦταμὲνἀκίνηταἔχουσιν , ἄκρᾳτῇοὐρᾷσιέουσιν : ib. vi. 15, ταχὺταῖςοὐραῖςδιασείουσαι : cf. also the impersonal usage, Thuc. iv. 52, τοῦαὐτοῦμηνὸςἱσταμένου , ἔσεισε )· συμβαίνειγὰρτινάσσεσθαιτὰἀνώτεραμέρητῶνοὕτωςἐμβριμωμένων · Cyril’ s comment is, ἐπειδὴοὐμόνονθεὸςκατὰφύσινἀλλὰκαὶἄνθρωποςἦνὁχριστός , πάσχεικαὶνῦντὸἀνθρώπινον · ἀρχομένηςδέπωςἐναὐτῷκινεῖσθαιτῆςλύπης , καὶνευούσηςἤδηπρὸςτὸδάκρυοντῆςἁγίαςσαρκός , οὐκἐφίησιναὐτὴντοῦτοπαθεῖνἐκλύτως , καθἁπερἔθοςἡμῖν , ἐμβριμᾶταιδὲτῷπνεύματι , τουτέστιτῇδυνάμειτοῦἁγίουπνεύματοςἐπιπλήττειτρόποντινὰτῇἰδίασαρκί ʼ ἡδέ , τὸτῆςἑνωθείσηςαὐτῇθεότητοςοὐκἐνεγκοῦσακίνημα , τρέμειτεκαὶθορύβουπλάττεταισχῆμακαὶσυγχέεται . πένθοςγὰροἶδενἀναῤῥιπίζειν . τοῦτογὰροἶμαισημαίνειντὸἑτάραξενἑαυτόν . 35-38. It is probable that the second set of Jews (ver. 37) spoke with a scoffing and hostile purport: for John seldom uses δέ as a mere copula, but generally as but; see vv. 46, 49, 51. It is (Trench, p. 407, edn. 2) a mark of accuracy in the narrative, that these dwellers in Jerusalem should refer to a miracle so well known among themselves, rather than to the former raisings of the dead in Galilee (Strauss has made this very point an objection), of which they probably may have heard, but naturally would not thoroughly believe on rumour only. Again, of raising Lazarus none of them seem to have thought, only of preventing his death. This second ἐμβριμᾶσθαι of our Lord I would refer to the same reason as the first. ἐδάκρυσεμέν , ἀφεὶςτὴνφύσινἐνδείξασθαιτὰἑαυτῆς · … εἶταπάλινἐμβριμᾶταιτῷπάθει . Euthym. Only he assigns a didactic purpose, to teach us moderation in our tears; I should rather believe the self-restraint to have been exercised as a preparation for what followed. The caves were generally horizontal, natural or artificial,— with recesses in the sides, where the bodies were laid. There is no necessity here for supposing the entrance to have been otherwise than horizontal, as the word σπήλαιον would lead us to believe. Graves were of both kinds: we have the vertically sunk mentioned Luke 11:44. See on the whole subject, Winer, Realw. art. ‘ Grä ber:’ and cf. Isaiah 22:16: 2 Chronicles 16:14: 2 Kings 23:16. Probably, from this circumstance, as from ‘ the Jews’ coming to condole,— and the costly ointment (ch. 12:3),— the family was wealthy. 39. The corpse had not been embalmed, but merely ‘ wrapped in linen clothes with spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury,’ — see ch. 19:40, and ver. 44 below, ἡἀδελφὴτοῦτετελευτηκότος , as Meyer remarks, notes the natural horror of the sister’ s heart at what was about to be done. There is no reason to avoid the assumption of the plain fact (see below) stated in ἤδηὄζει . I cannot see that any monstrous character (Olsh., Trench) is given to the miracle by it; any more than such a character can be predicated of restoring the withered hand. In fact, the very act of death is the beginning of decomposition. I have no hesitation, with almost all the ancient, and many of the best modern Commentators, in assuming ἤδηὄζει as a fact, and indeed with Stier, believing it to be spoken not as a supposition, but as a (sensible) fact. The entrances to these vaults were not built up,— merely defended, by a stone being rolled to them, from the jackals and beasts of prey. 40. I can hardly think she supposed merely that Jesus desired to look on the face of the dead;— she expected something was about to be done, but in her anxiety for decorum (Luke 10:40) she was willing to avoid the consequence of opening the cave. This feeling Jesus here rebukes, by referring her to the plain duty of simple faith, insisted on by Him before (vv. 25, 26? or in some other teaching?) as the condition of beholding the glory of God (not merely in the event about to follow,— for that was seen by many who did not believe,— but in a deeper sense,— that of the unfolding of the ἀνάστασιςκ . ζωή in the personal being). 41, 42. In the filial relation of the Lord Jesus to the Father, all power is given to Him: the Son can do nothing of Himself:— and during His humiliation on earth, these acts of power were done by Him, not by that glory of His own which He had laid aside, but by the mighty working of the Father in Him, and in answer to His prayer: the difference between Him and us in this respect being, that His prayer was always heard,— even (Hebrews 5:7) that in Gethsemane. And this ἤκουσάςμου He states here for the benefit of the standers-by, that they might know the truth of His repeated assertions of His mission from the Father. At the same time He guards this, ver. 42, from future misconstruction, as though He had no more power than men who pray, by ἐγὼδὲᾔδεινὅτιπάντοτέμουἀκούεις , ‘ because Thou and I are One.’ When He prayed, does not appear. Probably in Peræ a, before the declaration in ver. 4. 43. Some (Chrys., Lampe) suppose that the revivification had taken place before εὐχαριστῶσοι ,— and these words were merely a summoning forth. But this is highly improbable. The comparison of ch. 5:25, 28, which are analogically applicable, makes it clear that ἀκούσαντεςζήσονται is the physical as well as the spiritual order of things. κραυγάζειν was not His wont: see Matthew 12:19. This cry signified that greater one, which all shall hear, ch. 5:28. 44. κειρίαεἶδοςζώνηςἐκσχοινίων , παρεοικὸςἵμαντι , ᾗδεσμοῦαιτὰςκλίνας (see ref.), Suidas. κειρίαὁτῶννηπίωνδεσμός , ἤγουνἡκοίνωςφασκία (fascia), καὶᾗδεσμοῦαιτοὺςνεκρούς , Moschopulus (in Kuinoel). It does not appear whether the bands were wound about each limb, as in the Egyptian mummies, so as merely to impede motion,— or were loosely wrapped round both feet and both hands, so as to hinder any free movement altogether. The latter seems most probable, and has been supposed by many, e.g. Basil, Homil. de gratiar. actione, c. 5, vol. iii. p. 29, ὁνεκρὸςἐζωοποιεῖτυκαὶὁδεδεμένοςπεριεπάτει · θαῦμαἐνθαύματι , κειρίαιςδεδέσθαιτοὺςπόδας , καὶμὴκωλύεσθαιπρὸςκίνησιν . Ancient pictures represent Lazarus gliding forth from the tomb, not stepping: and that apparently is right. The σουδάριον appears to have tied up his chin. ὑπάγειν , probably, to his home. 45-57. The death of Jesus the life of the world. Consequences of the miracle. Meeting of the Sanhedrim and final determination, on the prophetic intimation of the High Priest, to put Jesus to death. He retires to Ephraim. 46. Meyer, with his usual philological acumen, takes pains to set right the understanding of this. In the last verse, it is not πολλοὶ … τῶνἐλθόντων , but πολλοὶ … οἱἐλθόντες : thus identifying the πολλοί with those that came: ‘ many … to wit, those that came.’ All these ἐπίστευσανεἰςαὐτόν (see a similar case in ch. 8:30 ff.). Then, τινὲςἐξαὐτῶν , viz. the ἐλθόντων , and πιστευόντων , went, &c. The δέ (see on ver. 37) certainly shews that this was done with a hostile intent: not in doubt as to the miracle, any more than in the case of the blind man, ch. 9, but with a view to stir up the rulers yet more against Him. This Evangelist is very simple, and at the same time very consistent, in his use of particles: almost throughout his Gospel the great subject, the manifestation of the Glory of Christ, is carried onward by οὖν , whereas δέ as generally prefaces the development of the antagonist manifestation of hatred and rejection of Him. If it seem strange that this hostile step should be taken by πιστεύοντεςεἰςαὐτόν , we at least find a parallel in the passage above cited, ch. 8:30 ff. 47. Their words may be read two ways; with, or without, a question after ποιοῦμεν . (1) is the ordinary way. (2) as in A.V.R., ‘ What do we, seeing that,— because,— this man doeth many miracles?’ 48. They evidently regarded the result of ‘ all believing on Him,’ as likely to be, that He would be set up as king: which would soon bring about the ruin here mentioned. Augustine (in Joan. Tract, xlix. 26) understands it differently: that, all men being persuaded by Him to peaceful lives, they would have no one to join them in revolt against the Romans; but this seems forced: for no ἐλεύσονται would in that case be provoked. τὸντόπον , not, the temple but our place, as in reff.: i.e. our local habitation, and our national existence. Both these literally came to pass. Whether this fear was earnestly expressed, or only as a covert for their enmity, does not appear. The ἡμῶν is emphatic, detecting the real cause of their anxiety. Respecting this man’ s pretensions, they do not pretend to decide: all they know is that if he is to go on thus, their status is gone. 49-52. The counsel is given in subtilty, and was intended by Caiaphas in the sense of political expediency only. But it pleased God to make him, as High Priest, the special though involuntary organ of the Holy Spirit, and’ thus to utter by him a prophecy of the death of Christ and its effects. That this is the only sense to be given, appears from the consideration that the whole of vv. 51. 52 cannot for a moment be supposed to have been in the mind of Caiaphas; and to divide it and suppose the latter part to be the addition of the Evangelist, is quite unjustifiable. ἀρχ . τ . ἐνιαυτοῦἐκείνου — repeated again, ch. 18:13. He was High Priest during the whole Procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, eleven years: Jos. Antt. xviii: 2. 2, and 4.3. In τοῦἐν . ἐκ . there is no intimation conveyed that the High Priesthood was changed every year, which it was not: but we must understand the words as directing, attention to ‘ that (remarkable) year,’ without any reference to time past or to come. That year of great events had Caiaphas as its High Priest. See on ver. 57. οὐκοἴδοὐδ .] Probably various methods of action had been suggested. Observe λαός here, the usual term for the chosen people (reff.), and then ἔθνος , when it is regarded as a nation among the nations: cf. also ver. 52. Meyer otherwise: hut Scripture usage is as above. ἀφ ʼ ἑαυτ . οὐκεἶπ .] not merely of himself, but under the influence of the Spirit, who caused him to utter words, of the full meaning of which he had no conception. ἀρχ . ὢνἐπροφ .] There certainly was a belief, arising probably originally from the use of the Urim and Thummim, that the High Priest, and Indeed every priest, had some knowledge of dreams and utterance of prophecy. We find it in Jos. B. J. iii. 8. 3, and Philo de Creat. Principum, 8, vol. ii. p. 367. The latter says ὁπρὸςἀλήθειανἱερεὺςεὐθύςἐστιπροφήτης . That this belief existed, may account for the expression here; which however does not confirm it in all cases, but asserts the fact that the Spirit in this case made use of him, as High Priest, for this purpose. This confirms the above view of τοῦἐνιαυτοῦἐκείνου , here again repeated. See on ver. 49. ὅτιἤμελ .… , the purport (unknown to himself) of his prophecy. And τοῦἔθν . is guarded from misunderstanding by what follows. τὰτέκ . τ . θεοῦ … are the τασσόμενοιεἰςζωὴναἰώνιον , the τέκναθ of ch. 1:12, among all nations: see ch. 10:16. 53. The decision, to put Him to death, is understood: and from that day they plotted that they might slay Him (not, how they might slay Him). 54. Observe the Ἰουδαῖοι here as the official body. He was still among Jews at Ephraim. This city is mentioned 2 Chron. 8:19 in connexion with Bethel, as also by Jos. B. J. iv. 9. 9. ἐγγ . τ . ἐρ ., near the desert of Judah. Its situation is at present unknown (see Winer, Realw. edn. 3, sub voce). Robinson (Harmony, p. 204) supposes it to be the same with Ophrah (Joshua 18:23: 1 Samuel 13:17: not Judges 6:11, Judges 6:24; Judges 8:27) and Ephron of the O.T. (2 Chronicles 13:19, ע ֶ פ ְ ר י ִ ן , Keri; ע ֶ פ ּ ְ ר ו ֹ ן , Cetibh), and the modern et-Taiyibeh, twenty R. miles from Jerusalem. See also Van de Velde, Memoir to accompany the Map of the Holy Land, under Ophrah, p. 338: and Stanley’ s Sinai and Palestine, p. 214. 55. ἐκτ . χώρ ., not ‘ from that country,’ — the connexion with εἰςτὴνχώραν above having been severed by the note of time, ἦνδὲἐγγὺςκ .τ .λ .:— but, from the country generally. ἵναἁγν . ἑαυτ .] To purify themselves from any Levitical uncleanness, that they might be able to keep the Passover: see Numbers 9:10; and reff. 2 Chron. and Acts. 56. τίδοκ . ὑμ ., and ὅτιοὐμὴἔλθῃ … ; are two separate questions, as in E. V. The making them one, is hardly grammatical, seeing that οὐμὴἔλθῃ must have a future sense, whereas in that case it would be past: ‘ What think ye, that He is not (i.e. of His not having) come to the feast?’ 57. The import of this verse depends on the insertion or omission of the καί before οἱἀρχιερεῖς . Without it, it is merely an explanation of the people’ s question: For the chief priests &c.: with it, it would mean, ‘ And besides, the chief priests’ &c.; i.e. ‘ not only did the people question, but’ &c. The former is in my view most probable; for the command, having been given, would satisfactorily account for the questioning, and not be stated merely as co-ordinate with it. Chap. 12:1-36. Prophetic anticipations of the Lord’ s glorification by death. 1-11. The anointing at Bethany. Matthew 26:6-13.Mark 14:3-9 Mark 14:3-9, where see notes. 1. On πρὸἓξἡμ ., see reff. It is an expression frequent in later Greek; so μετὰτριάκονταἡμ . τῶνγάμων , Dio lix. 20; μετὰδέκαἔτητοῦοἰκῆσαιἈβραὰμἐνγῇΧαναάν , Philo de Congressu, 14, vol. i. p. 529. See numerous instances in Greswell, vol. iii. Diss. 1, where he defines the expression to be exclusive of the period named as the limit ad quem or a quo (according as πρό or μετά is used), but inclusive of the day or month or year of the occurrence specified. Thus the arrival, and anointing, at Bethany, will be on the eighth of Nisan, if the passover was on the fourteenth. That day was a Sabbath; but this makes no difficulty, as we know not from what point our Lord came, or whether He arrived at the commencement of the Sabbath, i.e. sunset,— or a little after, on Friday evening, from Jericho. 2. ἐποίησαν ] It is not said who. It was (Matt., Mark) in the house of Simon the leper. From Lazarus being there, and Martha serving, he may have been a near relative of theirs. See notes on Matt. Lazarus is mentioned throughout the incident, ns forming an clement in the unfolding of the hatred of the Jews which issued in the Lord’ s death: notice the climax, from mere connecting mention in ver. 1, then nearer connexion in ver. 2,— to his being the cause of the Jews flocking to Bethany in ver. 9,— and the joint object with Jesus of the enmity of the chief priests, in ver. 10. 3. λίτραν ] What weight is imported, is uncertain: hardly (see ch. 19:39) so much as a Roman pound. The word, originally Greek, was adopted into the Aramaic, and is found in the Rabbinical writings as equivalent to a mina; see Friedlieb, Archä ologie der Leidensgeschichte, p. 33. On νάρδ . πιστ ., see note on Mark. ἤλ . τ . πόδ .] His head, according to Matt. and Mark. See note on Luke 7:38. 4. For Judas, we have οἱμαθ . αὐτοῦ . Matt.,— τινές , merely, Mark. See note on Matt. ver. 8. ὁμέλλεναὐτὸνπαραδιδόναι is not inserted, nor are any such notices in St. John without significance. It has a pragmatic connexion with the narrative in hand. Only one with thoughts alien from Jesus could have originated such a murmur. And on the other hand, it may well be, as some have supposed, that by the rebuke of the Lord on this occasion, the traitorous scheme of Judas, long hidden in his inmost soul, may have been stimulated to immediate action. 5. τριακοσ . δην .] Common to our narrative and Mark. The sum is about 9l. 16s. of our money (Friedlieb, p. 31). 6. γλωσσόκομον , ἀγγεῖοντῶναὐλητικῶνγλωττῶν , Phryn. (De Wette), to keep the reeds, or tongues, of wind instruments:— thus, generally, any kind of pouch, or money-chest. See LXX, and Josephus, in reff. ἐβάσταζεν ] It seems hardly possible, with St. John’ s use of βαστάζειν in ch. 20:15 before us, altogether to deny that the sense of carrying off, i.e. purloining, may be here intended. And we have examples in Josephus somewhat analogous: e.g. Antt. vii. 15. 3, where Hyrcanus the High Priest, wishing to give Antiochus Eusebes money to raise the siege, καὶἀλλαχόθενοὐκεὐπορῶν , ἀνοίξαςἕναοἶκοντῶνἐντῷΔαυίδουμνήματι , καὶβαστάσαςτρισχίλιατάλαντα , μέροςἔδωκενἈντιόχῳ .… See also ib. ix. 4. 5; xii. 5. 4: and Polyb. i. 48. 2. And so Origen, Theophyl., .; contra Lü cke, De Wette, Tholuck, al. 7. See note on Matt. ver. 12. To suppose that it was a remnant from that used at the burial of Lazarus, is not only fanciful, but at variance with the character of the deed as apparent in the narrative. The . reading, εἰςτ . ἡμ . τ . ἐντ . μουτετήρηκεναὐτό , seems to be an adaptation to Mark 14:8, in order to escape from the difficulty of understanding how she could keep for His burial, what she poured out now. Meyer understands the text of the remnant: but Luthardt rightly observes that the history clearly excludes the idea of a remnant: cf. ἐπράθη and ἐδόθη . He himself, with Baumg.-Crusius, takes τηρήοῃ as past, “ Let her have kept it,” i.e. blame her not for having kept it: but this is vapid in sense, and ungrammatical. I understand the words, which, like all our Lord’ s proleptical expressions, have something enigmatical in them, of her whole act, not regarded as a thing past, but spoken of in the abstract as to be allowed or disallowed: Let her keep it for the day of my burial: not meaning a future day or act, but the present one, as one to be allowed. 8. See note on Mark, vv. 7, 8. γάρ implies the ἔργονκαλὸνεἰργάσατοεἰςἐμέ of Matt. ver. 10. 9 ff.] Remember, here as elsewhere in John, the Ἰουδαῖοι are not the people, but the rulers, and persons of repute: the representatives of the Jewish opposition to Jesus. 10. ἐβουλ ., not, ‘ came to a (formal) resolution,’ but were in the mind,— had an intention: see Acts 5:33; Acts 15:37. The chief priests, named here and in ch. 11:57, were of the sect of the Sadducees; and therefore disbelieved the fact of the raising of Lazarus; only viewing him as one whom it would be desirable to put out of the way, as an object of popular attention in connexion with Jesus. 11. ὑπῆγον , went away (to Bethany); there is something in the ὑπ - which almost always implies away, out from under, the persons or the place in the narrative. And so here, the ἀρχιερεῖς being the main subject of the sentence, the word gets the sense of ‘ fell away:’ scil. from under their hand or power. 12-19. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Matthew 21:1-17. Mark 11:1-11.Luke 19:29-44 Luke 19:29-44. On the chronology, see note on Matthew 21:1. 12. τῇἐπ ., i.e. on the Sunday: see on ver. 1. ἀκούσ ., from the multitude who had returned from Bethany, ver. 9. The order of the narrative seems to require that these people should have visited Bethany late on the Sabbath, after sunset, and the anointing. 13. τὰβ . τ . φοιν .] The articles shew that the palm-trees were on the spot: the branches of the palm-trees: or perhaps (Lü cke) that the custom was usual at such festivities. βαΐα ] The classical word is βαΐς , from the Coptic bai. 14-16. The Evangelist seems to suppose his readers already acquainted with the circumstances of the triumphal entry, and therefore relates it thus compendiously. εὑρών does not involve any discrepancy with the three Evangelists, but is a compendious term implying their details. 15. The prophecy is more fully cited by Matt. 16. Important, as shewing that this, and probably other prophetic citations under similar circumstances, were the effect of the light poured into the minds of the Apostles by the Holy Spirit after the Ascension. ἐπ ʼ αὐτῷ ] So Æ sch. Eum. 343, γιγνομέναισιλάχητάδ ʼ ἐφ ʼ ἁμῖνἐκράνθη : Soph. Trach. 997, οἵανἐπίμοιχάρινἠνύσω ; Plato, Euthyd. 278 a, ὄνομαἐπ ʼ ἀνθρώποιςἐναντίωςἔχουσικείμενον . ταῦταἐποίησαναὐτῷ — viz. the going out to meet Him, strewing clothes and branches in the way, and shouting ‘ Hosanna’ before Him: also perhaps, the setting Him on the ass, implied in the concise narrative. Notice the thrice-repeated ταῦτα , each time signifying ‘ this which was written by the Prophet,’ ‘ the above citation.’ 17. The testimony which they bore is given in Luke 19:37, Luke 19:38. Meyer regards the ἐφώνησενἐκτοῦμνημείουκ . ἤγειρενἐκνεκρῶν as an echo of their song of triumph. 18. I see no necessity for supposing this multitude distinct from that in the last verse. We have had no account of any multitude coming from Bethany with Him, nor does this narrative imply it: and surely ὁὄχλος in the two verses must mean the same persons. The καί here does not imply another ὄχλος , but And on this account the multitude also went out to meet Him: i.e. their coming out to meet Him and their μαρτυρία on the Mount of Olives, had one and the same cause,— the raising of Lazarus. 19. κόσμος ] κόσμοντὰπλήθηλέγουσιν . ἀπῆλθεν can hardly be altogether without allusion to the fact, or likelihood, of apostasy from Judaism. It is used to signify entire devotion to Him whithersoever He might lead them, as in ref.: and thus implies escape and alienation from themselves. 20-36. Future spread of the kingdom of God among Gentiles from the death of Jesus. Some Greeks desire to see Jesus. His discourse thereupon. 20. These Ἕλληνες were not Grecian Jews,— who would not have been so called: but Gentiles, ‘ proselytes of the gate,’ who were in the habit of coming up to the feast: see ch. 7:35 reff. and note; also Acts 8:27. 21. For what reason Philip was selected, it is impossible to say. The Greek form of his name may imply some connexion with Hellenistic Jews, who may have been friends or relatives of these Greeks. If they were from the neighbourhood of Bethsaida, they would indeed have been familiar with the person of Jesus:— but what they here requested was evidently a private interview. 22. Andrew (ch. 1:45) was of the same city as Philip: and this reason of Philip conferring with him is perhaps implied in the τῷἀπὸΒ . τ . Γ . Bengel remarks on this touch of nature: “ cum sodali, audet.” ἔρχεται — so ἔπεμψέμεἈριαῖοςκ . Ἀρτάοζος , Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 16. 23. Did the Greeks see (i.e. speak with) Jesus, or not? Certainly not, if I understand His discourse rightly. But they may have been present at, and have understood it. The substance of His answer (αὐτοῖς , to Philip and Andrew, not to the Greeks) is, that the time was now come for His glorification, which should draw all nations to Him:— but that glorification must be accomplished by His Death. The very appearance of these Greeks is to Him a token that His glorification is at hand. Stier strikingly says, “ These men from the West at the end of the Life of Jesus, set forth the same as the Magi from the East at its beginning;— but they come to the Cross of the King, as those to His cradle.” (R. J. v. 69, edn. 2.) The rejection of the Jews for their unbelief is the secondary subject, and is commented on by the Evangelist, vv. 37-43. ἵνα , not ‘ eventual,’ nor ‘ for’ any thing, but most strictly of the purpose— the hour has come, that (whose object of preparation, and aim, in the eternal counsels, it has been, that) the Son of Man should be glorified. 24. Meyer thinks, that our Lord begins His declaration with the double asseveration ἀμὴνἀμήν , on account of the unreceptivity of the mind of the disciples for the announcements of His Death. But St. John always uses ἀμὴνἀμήν . The grain of wheat perishes, and is not apparent (as the seeds of dicotyledonous plants are) in the new plant: see 1 Corinthians 15:36. The saying is more than a mere parabolic similitude: the divine Will, which has fixed the law of the springing up of the wheat-corn, has also determined the law of the glorification of the Son of Man, and the one in analogy with the other: i.e. both through Death. The symbolism here lies at the root of that in ch. 6, where Christ is ὁἄρτοςτῆςζωῆς . αὐτὸςμόνος , by itself alone, with its life uncommunicated, lived only within its own limits, and not passing on. 25. And this same divine Law prevails for the disciples, as well as for their Master: see Matthew 10:39 and note. But the saying here proclaims more plainly its true extent,— by its immediate connexion with ver. 24, and by εἰςζ . αἰών . ψυχή is not really in a double sense: as the wheat-corn retains its identity, though it die, so the ψυχή : so that the two senses are, in their depth, but one. ψυχή is the life in both cases;— not the soul, in the present acceptation of that term. 26. Connexion:— The ministering to, or intimate union with, Christ (the position of Philip and Andrew and the rest, and that into which these Greeks seemed desirous to enter) implies following Him,— and that, through tribulation to glory. εἰμί , the essential present— in My true place, i.e. (ch. 17:24) in the glory of the Father. τιμήσει — by glorifying him in My glorification, ch. 17:24. 27. “ Concurrebat horror mortis et ardor obedientiæ ” (Bengel). And to express both these together in human speech was impossible: therefore τίεἴπω ; The following words must not be taken interrogatively (as by Theophyl., Grot., Tholuck, al.) [as if our Lord were doubting whether to say them or not]: for thus the whole sense is destroyed, besides the sentiment being most unworthy of Him who uttered it. The prayer is a veritable prayer; and answers to the prophetic Messianic prayers in the Psalms, which thus run— “ My soul is troubled; Lord, help me” (Psalms 69:1; Psalms 40:12, Psalms 40:13; Psalms 25:17; Psalms 6:3, Psalms 6:4 al.); and to that prayer afterwards in Gethsemane, Matthew 26:39. διὰτοῦτο ] The misunderstanding of these words has principally led to the erroneous punctuation just noticed. διὰτοῦτο = ἵνασωθῶἐκτῆςὥραςταύτης . ‘ I came to this hour for this very purpose,— that I might be saved from this hour:’ i.e. ‘ the going into, and exhausting this hour, this cup, is the very appointed way of my glorification.’ Das Hineinkommen ist selbst das Hindurchkommen, das Leiden selbst die Erldsung! Stier, v. 77, edn. 2: so also Lampe. This interpretation does not, as Luthardt says, fall with the interrogative punctuation of the previous clause, but holds equally good when that is relinquished. The other interpretation, that of Meyer, al., is, that Thy Name may be glorified. But surely this is to do violence to the order of thought. This particular does not come in till the next clause, and cannot without an improbable trajection be drawn into this. 28. The glorifying the Name of the Father can only take place by the glorification of the Son; and this latter only by His death: so that this is the “ ardor obedientiæ ” triumphant. φωνή ] This ‘ voice’ can no otherwise be understood, than as a plain articulate sound, miraculously spoken, heard by all, and variously interpreted. So all the ancients, and the best of the modern expositors, Meyer, Stier, Luthardt, &c. On the saying of the crowd (ver. 29) has been built the erroneous and unworthy notion, that it was only thunder, but understood by the Lord and the disciples to mean as here stated. The Jewish Bath Kol has no applicability here. ἐδόξασα ] In the manifestation hitherto made of the Son of God, imperfect as it was (see Matthew 16:16, Matthew 16:17); in all O.T. type and prophecy; in creation; and indeed ( in Joan. Tract. Lev_4) “ antequam facerem mundum.” πάλιν is here no mere repetition, but an intensification of the δοξάζειν , a yet once more [: and this time fully and finally]. 29. Some heard words, but did not apprehend their meaning; others a sound, but no words. I should rather believe this difference to have been proportioned to each man’ s inner relation to Christ, than fortuitous. 30. The voice had been heard by those, who did not apprehend its meaning, as thunder. But αὕτηἡφωνή could not by any possibility have been said to them, if it had only thundered. Our Lord does not say that the assurance was not made for His sake;— He had prayed, and His prayer had been answered:— but that it had not been thus outwardly expressed for His, but for their sake. This is likewise true in the case of all testimonies to Him; and especially those two other voices from heaven,— at His Baptism and His Transfiguration. ὑμᾶς is the whole multitude, not merely the disciples. All heard, and all might have understood the voice: see ch. 11:42. 31. All this is a comment on ἐλήλυθενἡὥρα , ver. 23: and now a different side of the subject is taken up, and one having immediate reference to the occasion: viz. the drawing of the Gentile world to Him. νῦν ] He speaks of Himself as having actually entered the hour of His passion, and views the result as already come. κρίσις , not (Chrys., Cyril, Aug., Grot.) “ the deliverance of this world from the devil;” — nor, “ decision concerning this world,” who is to possess it (Bengel):— but (see ch. 16:11) judgment, properly so called, the work of the Spirit who was to come, on the world, which ὅλοςἐντῷπονηρῷκεῖται , 1 John 5:19. ὁἄρχ . τ . κόσ . τ .] The ש ׂ ַ ר ה ָ ע ו ֹ ל ָ ם of the Jews, Satan, the ὁθεὸςτοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου of 2 Corinthians 4:4: see also Ephesians 2:2; Ephesians 6:12. Observe it is ἐκβληθήσεται , not ἐκβάλλεται , because the casting out (ἔξω , ἐκτῆςἀρχῆς , Euthym., Grot., or better perhaps, out of ὁκόσμοςοὗτος , his former place) shall be gradual, as the drawing in the next verse. But after the death of Christ the casting out began, and its first-fruits were, the coming in of the Gentiles into the Church. 32. See reff. Here there is more perhaps implied in ὑψ . than in either of those places: viz. the Death, with all its consequences. The Saviour crucified, is in fact the Saviour glorified; so that the exalting to God’ s right hand is set forth by that uplifting on the Cross. There is a fine touch of pathos, corresponding to the feeling of ver. 27, in ἐὰνὑψωθῶ . Hermann’ s description of the meaning of ἐὰντοῦτογένηται exactly gives it: “ sumo hoc fieri, et potest omnino fieri, sed utrum vere futurum sit necne, experientia cognoscam.” Viger, p. 832. The Lord Jesus, though knowing all this, yet in the weakness of his humanity, puts himself into this seeming doubt, ‘ if it is so to be:’ cf. Matthew 26:42. All this is missed by the shallow and unscholarlike rendering ‘ when,’ which I need hardly remind my readers ἐάν can never bear. See on ch. 14:3: 1 John 3:2. ἑλκύσω — by the diffusion of the Spirit in the Church: manifested in the preaching of the Word mediately, and the pleading of the Spirit immediately. Before the glorification of Christ, the Father drew men to the Son (see ch. 6:44 and note), but now the Son Himself to Himself. Then it was, ‘ no man can come except the Father draw Him:’ now the Son draws all. And, to Himself, as thus uplifted, thus exalted;— the great object of Faith: see ch. 11:52. 33. ποίῳθαν . can hardly mean more than by what manner of death. Lampe and Stier find in the word the whole consequences and character of His Death: but see ch. 18:32. John does not say that this was all that ὑψωθῶ meant, but that it was its first and obvious reference. 34. In such passages as Psalms 89:36, and perhaps 110:4: Daniel 7:13, Daniel 7:14. τοῦνόμου ] The O.T.: see ch. 10:34. The actual words ὅτιδεῖὑψ . τ . υἱ . τ . ἀνθ . had not been on this occasion used by Jesus; but in His discourse with Nicodemus, ch. 3:14, and perhaps in other parts of His teaching which have not been recorded. τίςἐστιν … ] They thought some other Son of Man, not the Messiah, was meant; because this lifting up (which they saw implied taking away) was inapplicable to their idea of the Messiah, usually known as the Son of Man. 35. He does not answer them, but enjoins them to make use of the time of His presence yet left them. ὡς , as, not exactly ‘ while:’ walk, according to your present state of privilege in possessing the Light: which indeed can only be done while it is with you. τὸφῶς , ‘ Myself’ — see ch. 7:33; 8:12; 9:4, 5. ἐνὑμ ., among you: see ref., and ch. 15:24 (or in the deeper meaning of ch. 11:10, which see, and note). The light is an easy transition from their question, if, as above supposed, Psalms 89:36 was alluded to: “ His (David’ s) seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before Me.” περιπατ ., i.e. ‘ make use of the Light, do your work in it, and by it.’ οὐκοἶδ . ὑπ . π ., ‘ has no guide nor security, no principle to lead him.’ 36. It is by believing on the Light, that men become sons of Light: see ch. 1:12. Our Lord probably went to Bethany, Luke 21:37. 37-50. Final judgment on the unbelief of the Jews. 37-43. The Evangelist’ s judgment on their unbelief (37-41), and their half-belief (42, 43). I do not regard these verses as forming the conclusion to the narrative of the public ministry of the Lord, on account of vv. 44-50 (where see note): but doubtless the approaching close of that ministry gives occasion to them, and is the time to which they refer. 37. τοσαῦτα , so many: not, so great: see ch. 6:9, 21:11. οὐκἐπίστ ., i.e. the generality did not;— they did not, as a people: see ver. 42. 38. On ἵναπλ . see note, Matthew 1:22: beware of the ‘ ecbatic’ or ‘ eventual’ sense, which has no existence. 39. διὰτοῦτο refers to the last verse, and ὅτι sets forth the reason more in detail: see ch. 5:16: 1 John 3:1: Matthew 24:44. The common interpretation (Theophyl., Vulg., Lampe, Tholuck, Olsh., al.), by which διὰτοῦτο is referred forward to ὅτι , would require some particle, καί , or δέ , to denote a transition to the fresh subject. De Wette, Meyer, Lü cke, edn. 3, Grot. al. οὐκἠδύν .] could not— i.e. it was otherwise ordained in the divine counsels. No attempt to escape this meaning (as “ nolebant,” , Thl. &c.) will agree with the prophecy cited ver. 40. But the inability, as thus stated, is coincident with the fullest freedom of the human will: compare οὐθέλετε , ch. 5:40. ὅτι , not ‘ for,’ but because. A more special ground is alleged why they could not believe: see above. 40. The prophecy is freely cited, after neither the Heb. nor the LXX, which is followed in Matthew 13:14f. What God bids the Prophet do, is here described as done, and by Himself: which is obviously implied in the Heb. text. The reading αὑτῶν (Morus) supplying ὁλαὸςοὗτος as the subject of τετύφ . and πεπώρ ., is out of the question,— as ungrammatical, and inconsistent with the context, which will only allow of ὁκύριος (i.e. Jehovah) as the subject. 41. ὅτιεἶδ ., because he saw. “ This apocalyptic vision was the occasion of that prophecy.” Meyer. αὐτοῦ , of Christ. The Evangelist is giving his judgment,— having (Luke 24:45) had his understanding opened to understand the Scriptures,— that the passage in Isaiah is spoken of Christ. And indeed, strictly considered, the glory which Isaiah saw could only be that of the Son, Who is the ἀπαύγασματῆςδόξης of the Father, Whom no eye hath seen. κ . ἐλάλ . π . αὐτ . does not depend on ὅτι : and he spake concerning Him. 42. e.g. Nicodemus, Joseph, and others like them. On ἀποσυν . see note, ch. 9:22. Ver. 43 is a reference to ch. 5:44. περ , in this case, augments the disjunctive force of ἤ . See Kü hner, ii. § 747, Anm. 4, where many examples are given. 44-50. Proof of the guilt of their unbelief, from the words of Jesus Himself. It was by the older Commentators generally thought that these verses formed part of some other discourse delivered at this period. But this is improbable, from no occasion being specified,— from ver. 36,— and from the form and contents of the passage, and its reference to the foregoing remarks of the Evangelist. I take it— with almost all modern Commentators— to be a continuation of those remarks, substantiating them by the testimony of the Lord Himself. The words are taken mostly, but not altogether, from discourses already given in this Gospel. 44, 45. ἔκρ . κ . εἶπ . not pluperf. (nor ever), but indefinite, as ἐπίστευσαν , ὡμολ ., and ἠγάπ . above. ἔκρ . is used of open public teaching, see reff. On the close connexion with the Father, see ch. 5:24, 38; 8:19, 42; 14:10. The words are in logical sequence to ver. 41, in which the Evangelist has said that the glory of Jehovah and His glory were the same. 46. See ver. 35; ch. 8:12; 9:5. The μείνη here expresses that all are originally in darkness,— as μένει , ch. 3:36. 47. See ch. 3:17; 5:45; 8:15. The omission of μή (see var. readd.) appears to have been occasioned by a mistaken idea that vv. 48 and 47 were in contrast to one another. 48. See ch. 3:18, also 5:45 f., and Hebrews 4:12. On ἀθετῶν and μὴλαμβ . see reff.: and on the emphatic ἐκεῖνος , referring to the primary subject, cf. note on ch. 7:29, also on ch. 3:28. 49. See ch. 5:30; 7:16, 17, 28, 29; 8:26, 28, 38. On ἐντολή , ch. 10:18. There does not appear to be any real difference here, though many have been suggested, between εἴπω and λαλήσω : both are summed up in λαλῶ in the next verse: compare Matthew 10:19. 50. See ch. 6:63 (and note), 68. On οἶδα , ch. 3:11; 5:32; 8:55. The ἐντολὴαὐτοῦ is, results in, not as a means merely, but in its accomplishment and expansion, eternal life: see ch. 3:15; 5:24; 6:40. Thus all who do not believe are without excuse;— because Jesus is not come, and speaks not, of Himself, but of the Father, Whose will and commandment respecting Him is, that He should be, and give, Life to all. They who reject Him, reject Life, and (ch. 3:19) prefer darkness to Light. Chap. 13-20. Third division of the Gospel. Jesus and His own. 13-17] His Love and the faith of His own. 13:1-30. His Love in Humiliation. 1-11. His condescension in washing their feet. On the chronological difficulties, see notes on Matthew 26:17, and ch. 18:28. There can be no reasonable doubt that this meal was the same as that at which the Lord’ s Supper was instituted, as related in the three Evangelists. The narrative proceeds without any break until ch. 17:26, after which our Lord and the disciples go to Gethsemane. 1. πρὸτ . ἑορ . τ . π .] How long, is not said: but probably, a very short time;— not more than one day at the most: see ch. 18:28 and note. The words belong to the whole narrative following, not to εἰδώς or ἀγαπήσας . εἰδώς ] The view with which our Lord washed His disciples’ feet, is shewn by the repeated εἰδώς and by ἀγαπήσας … αὐτούς . The connexion is:— “ Jesus loved His own even to the end (of His life in the flesh), and gave them in the washing of their feet a proof of His love; and to this act He was induced by the knowledge that He must soon leave this world; and although this knowledge was united (ver. 3) with the highest consciousness of His divine mission and speedy glorification, yet this latter did not prevent Him from giving this proof of His self-humiliating love” (De Wette). τοὺςἰδ . τ . ἐντ . κ .] See ch. 17:11. 2. δείπ . γεν .] Not as E. V. ‘ supper being ended,’ for (ver. 12) He reclined again, and in ver. 26, the supper is still going on:— but, supper having begun, or having been served— see Ἰησ . γενομένουἐνΒηθ . Matthew 26:6, ‘ When Jesus had arrived at B.;’ — and πρωΐαςγενομένης , ‘ when it had become morning,’ ch. 21:4. Cf. also γενομένουσαββάτου , Mark 6:2. τοῦδ . ἤδηβεβ .] The construction of the text, according to the true reading, is involved and difficult. But its meaning will be immediately perceived, if we render βεβληκότοςεἰςτὴνκαρδίαν , suggested,— proposed, viz. to the mind of Judas. The devil having by this time suggested (to Judas) that Judas Iscariot the son of Simon (i.e. that he) should betray Him. The interpretation of βεβλ . εἰςτ . κ ., “ having conceived in his (the devil’ s) mind” (Meyer), is wholly unworthy of a scholar, and simply absurd. Judas had before this covenanted with the Sanhedrim to betray Him, Matthew 26:14 and , which must here be meant by the devil having put it into his heart:— the thorough self-abandonment to Satan which led to the actual deed, being designated ver. 27. Luke (22:3) expresses the steps of his treasonable purpose otherwise,— meaning the same. The fact is here stated, to enhance the love which Jesus shewed in the following action. 3. See above. He did what follows with a full sense of the glory and dignity of His own Person. “ Præ fatio gloriæ est instar protestationis, ne quid indignum fecisse existimetur Dominus pedes suorum lavans.” Bengel. The perfect, δέδωκεν , and present, ὑπάγει , are used indefinitely: of things fixed in the counsel of God: or perhaps, rather, as consistent with the historical presents, ἐγείρεται , τίθησιν , to give life and presence to the whole scene. 4. τὰἱμ ., “ eas, quæ lotionem impedirent.” Bengel. He put Himself into the ordinary dress of a servant. Or, which is far more probable, on the deepest grounds, did He not humble Himself so far as literally to divest Himself, and gird Himself merely, as the basest of slaves? 5. τὸννιπ ., the vessel usually at hand for such purposes. The context seems to shew that He had washed the feet of one or more before the incident of the next verse: were it not so, ἤρξατο might merely express his doing something unusual and unlooked for. ᾧ is perhaps by attraction for ὅ , which would be the ordinary case after διεζωσμένος , cf. Revelation 1:13; Revelation 15:6: or it may be dative by construction, as in Hom. Il. κ . 77, πὰρδὲζωστὴρκεῖτοπαναίολος , ᾧῥ ʼ ὁγεραιὸςΖώννυθ ʼ , and other examples in Meyer. 6. And He comes to Simon Peter; not first, as some have maintained, both with and without reference to the primacy of Peter:— for that would be hardly consistent (see on the preceding verse) with the context, which seems to require that the washing should have begun and been going on, before He came to Peter. νίπτεις ] art Thou washing (intending to wash) my feet? He thinks the act unworthy of the Lord; even as many think that great act of Love to have been, which was typified by it. Notice that μου is enclitic, not emphatic, in which case it would be ἐμοῦ . The having his feet washed is a matter of course: it is the Person who is about to do it that offends him. 7. Hitherto our Lord had been silent. He emphasizes the ἐγώ and σύ , but so as to set forth Himself as the Master, Peter as the disciple, not wholly cognizant of His will and purpose, and therefore more properly found in subjection to it. ὃἐγὼποιῶ , i.e. (1) this washing itself, as a lesson of humility and love, ver. 14.) (2) Its symbolical meaning, vv. 9, 10. (3) The great Act of Love, the laying aside my glory, and becoming in the form of a servant, that the washing of the Holy Spirit may cleanse men. μετὰταῦτα ] (1) was known very soon, but (2) and (3) not till after the Spirit was given. 8. The rash and self-opinionated Apostle opposes to μετὰταῦτα his οὐμὴ … εἰςτ . αἰῶνα . In interpreting our Lord’ s answer, we must remember, that He replies more to the spirit of Peter’ s objection, than to his words. The same well-meaning but false humility would prevent him (and does prevent many) from stooping to receive at the hands of the Lord that spiritual washing which is absolutely necessary in order to have any part in Him, Romans 8:9, ‘ If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in Me;’ but the affirmative proposition is not equally true; witness the example of Judas, who was washed, but yet had no part in Jesus. In the spiritual sense of washing, this is not so. Whoever is washed by Jesus, has part in Him. We are here in the realm of another and deeper logic: the act being no longer symbolic, but veritable. 9. The warm-hearted Peter, on learning that exclusion would be the consequence of not being washed, can hardly have enough of a cleansing so precious. There surely is implied in this answer an incipient apprehension of the meaning of our Lord’ s words. The ἐὰνμὴνίψωσε has awakened in him, as the Lord’ s presence did, Luke 5:8, a feeling of his own want of cleansing, his entire pollution. This sense (Stier, Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius) is denied by Lü cke and Olsh. 10. Reference appears to be made to the fact that one who has bathed, after he has reached his home, needs not entire washing, but only to have his feet washed from the dust of the way. This bathing, the bath of the new birth, but only yet in its foreshadowing, in the purifying effect of faith working by love, the Apostles, with one exception, had; and this foot-washing represented to them, besides its lesson of humility and brotherly love, their daily need of cleansing from daily pollution, even after spiritual regeneration, at the hands of their Divine Master. See 2 Corinthians 7:1: James 1:21: Acts 15:8, Acts 15:9: 2 Peter 2:22. On καθ . ἐστε , see note, ch. 15:3. 11. τὸνπαραδιδόντα , as ὁἐρχόμενος , him that should betray Him, the indefinite characteristic present. 12-20. This act, a pattern of self-denying love for His servants. 12. γινώσκ . τίπ . ὑ .] These words are uttered, not so much in expectation of an answer, as to direct their attention to the following. 13. ὁδιδάσκ . and ὁκ . are titular nominatives, as in reff. (Winer, § 29. 1, edn. 6.) 14. [The command here given must be understood in the full light of intelligent appreciation of the circumstances and the meaning of the act.] “ Pedilavium, quod Dominus discipulis adhibuit, pertinebat et ad beneficium conferendæ puritatis totalis, et ad παιδείαν decendæ dilectionis humilis, ver. 34, coll. ver. 1. Inde pedilavium discipulorum inter se eo pertinet, ut alter alterum quoquo modo adjuvet ad consequendam puritatem animæ ; et ut alter alteri pedes lavet,— vel proprie, 1 Timothy 5:10, idque serio, si scil. accidat, ut opus sit: est enim præ ceptum affirmativum, obligans semper, sed non ad semper: quale etiam illud, 1 John 3:16— vel synecdochice, per omne genus officiorum, quæ alter alteri etiam servilia et sordida, modo opportuna, præ stare potest. Dominus igitur per ipsum pedilavium purificavit discipulos: quare etiam Petrum amanter coë git: sed discipulis pedilavium mutuum non hoc nomine præ cepit; neque adeo tanta est pedilavii literatenus imitandi necessitas, quantam nonnulli statuerunt: quum Johannes v. gr. Thomæ pedes nusquam laverit; et tamen major pedilavii Dominici et fraterni similitudo, quam plerique agnoscunt. Hodie pontifices et principes pedilavium ad literam imitantur; magis autem admirandus foret, v. gr. pontifex, unius regis, quam duodecim pauperum pedes, seria humilitate lavans.” Bengel. The custom of literally and ceremonially washing the feet in obedience to this command, is not found before the fourth century. 15. καθώς , not ὅ , ἐγὼἐπ . Our Lord’ s action was symbolical, and is best imitated in His followers by endeavouring, “ if a man be overtaken in a fault, to restore such an one in the spirit of meekness:” Galatians 6:1. 16, 17. The proverbial expression οὐκἔστινδ .… is used here in a different sense from ch. 15:20. Here it is, ‘ if the Master thus humble Himself, much more should His servants and messengers:’ see Matthew 10:24: Luke 6:40; and on ver. 17, Luke 12:47, Luke 12:48. The mere recognition of such a duty of humility, is a very much more easy matter than the putting it in practice. 18. I say it not of you all: for there is one who can never be μακάριος . Our Lord repeats His ἀλλ ʼ οὐχὶπάντες of ver. 10, and the sad recollection leads to His trouble in spirit, ver. 21. ἐγὼοἶδα ] The ἐγώ is emphatic; and the reason of its emphasis is given in ver. 19. Connexion: ‘ It might be supposed that this treachery has come upon Me unawares; but it is not so: I (for my part) know whom I have selected (viz. the whole twelve, see ch. 6:70; not only the true ones (Stier), as in ch 15:16, said when Judas was not present): but this has been done by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, declared in the Scriptures.’ On the citation, see LXX. The words here are given freely, the LXX having ἐμεγάλυνενἐπ ʼ ἐμὲπτερνισμόν . This is another instance of the direct and unhesitating application of the words of the Psalms by our Lord to Himself. τὴνπτ .] “ Congruit hic sermo imprimis ad lotionem pedum, et ad morem veterum discumbentium ad panem edendum.” Bengel. 19. ‘ Now, from this time, I announce it to you, that when it shall have happened, you may believe that I am(the Christ).’ See ch. 16:1, and above on ἐγὼοἶδα , ver, 18. 20. See Matthew 10:40. The connexion is very difficult, and variously set down. It has been generally supposed (, &c.) that the words were to comfort the Apostles for the disgrace of their order by Judas, or in prospect of their future labours. But then would not ἄντιναπ . have been expressed by ὑμᾶς Another view is to refer back to vv. 16, 17, and suppose the connexion to have been broken by the allusion to Judas. But is this likely, in a discourse of our Lord? I rather believe that the saying sets forth the dignity of that office from which Judas was about to fall: q. d. ‘ not only was he in close intercourse with Me (ver. 18), but invested with an ambassadorship for Me, and in Me, for the Father; and yet he will lift up his heel against Me.’ And the consideration of this dignity in all its privileges, as contrasted with the sad announcement just to be made, leads on to the ἐταράχθητῷπν . of the next verse. 21-30. Contrast of the manifestations of love and hate. See notes on Matthew 26:21-25.Mark 14:18-21.Luke 22:21-23. 21. See above. One of those mysterious troublings of spirit, which passed over our Lord,— ch. 11:33 and 12:27. ἐμαρτ . implies the delivery of some solemn and important announcement. This was the first time He had ever spoken so plainly. All four Evangelists agree in the substance of the announcement. 22. In Matt. and Mark they express their questioning in words. St. Luke’ s συνζητεῖνπρὸςἑαυτούς would appear to imply the same. We seem called on here to decide a much-controverted question,— where in John’ s narrative the institution of the Lord’ s supper is to be inserted? I believe certainly before this announcement, as in Luke: and if before it, perhaps before the washing of the disciples’ feet: for I see no break which would admit it between our ver. 1 and ver. 21. 23. Since the captivity, the Jews lay at table in the Persian manner, on divans or couches, each on his left side, with his face towards the table, his left elbow resting on a pillow and supporting his head. Thus the second guest to the right hand lay with his head near the breast of the first, and so on (Lü cke ii. 565). ὃνἠγάπαὁἸησ .] The disciple meant is John himself, see ch. 21:20; also designated thus, ch. 19:26; 21:7 (see Prolegomena to John, § i. 6). 24-26. See note on Matt. ver. 23. Peter characteristically imagines that John, as the beloved disciple, would know: but he, not knowing, asks of the Lord. It is an argument for the reading in the text, that (Schulz) John never uses the optative. 25. ἀναπεσών , leaning back on the bosom of Jesus. οὕτως , as in ref. I understand it, that John, who was before lying close to the bosom of Jesus, now leaned his head absolutely upon His breast, to ask the question. This escaped the notice of the rest at the table: see on Matt. as above. 26. This = Matt. ver. 23, Mark, ver. 20. Meyer remarks, that the ἐγώ is expressed as a contrast to the ἐκεῖνος . τὸψωμ ., probably a piece of the unleavened bread, dipped in the broth made of bitter herbs. 27. “ Post offulam, non cum offula.” Bengel. Observe the ψωμίον stands for the act in which it played a principal part. This giving the sop was one of the closest testimonies of friendly affection. τότε carries a graphic power and pathos with it: at that moment. εἰσῆλθ . εἰςἐκ . ὁσ .] See ver. 2 and note. Satan entered fully into him, took full possession of him,— so that his will was not only bent upon doing the deed of treachery, but fixed and determined to do it then and there. The words must be understood literally, not as , as merely betokening τὴνκύρωσιντῶνκαταθυμίωντῷδιαβόλῳλογισμῶν . ὃποιεῖς … ] These words are not to be evaded, as being permissive (Grot.) or dismissive (οὐδὲπροστάττοντοςοὐδὲσυμβουλεύοντος , ἀλλ ʼ ὀνειδίζοντοςκαὶδεικνύοντοςὅτιαὐτὸςμὲνἐβούλετοδιορθώσασθαι , ἐπειδὴδὲἀδιορθώτωςεἶχεν , ἀφίησιναὐτόν . Chrys. Hom, in Joan. lxx. 1. 2). They are like the saying of God to Balaam, Numbers 22:20,— and of our Lord to the Pharisees, Matthew 23:32. The course of sinful action is presupposed, and the command to go on is but the echo of that mysterious appointment by which the sinner in the exercise of his own corrupted will becomes the instrument of the purposes of God. Thus it is not ὅ , or εἴτι , ποιήσεις , but ὃποιεῖς :— that which thou art doing, hast just now fully determined to put in present action, do more quickly— ‘ than thou seemest willing:’ — or perhaps better ‘ than thou wouldst otherwise have done,’ which seems the account to be ordinarily given of this use of the comparative:— reproving his lingering, and his pretending (Matt. ver. 25) to share in the general doubt. 28. Not even John: who knew he was the traitor, but had no idea the deed was so soon to be done (Lü cke, De Wette). Stier supposes John to exclude himself in saying οὐδεὶςτ . ἀνακ ., and that he knew. 29. The first supposition agrees with ver. 1,— that it was πρὸτῆςἑορτῆςτοῦπάσχα . Had it been the night of the passover, the next day being hallowed as a sabbath, nothing could have been bought. On the whole question see notes on Matthew 26:17, and ch. 18:28. On the second supposition, see ch. 12:5. The gift to the poor might be, to help them to procure their paschal lamb. 30. The remark ἧνδὲνύξ (which certainly concludes this period, see ὅτεοὖν , ver. 12) seems to be added to bring the whole narrative from ch. 13:1 to ch. 18:3 into precision, as happening on one and the same night. It is perhaps fanciful to see, as , Olsh., Stier, &c. have done, an allusion to the σκοτία in Judas’ s soul, or to ὑμῶν … ἡὥρακαὶἡἐξουσίατοῦσκότου , Luke 22:53; though doubtless there the Lord alludes to its being also night: but I quite feel, with Meyer, that there is something awful in this termination— it was night. 31-16:33. His love in keeping and completing his own. And herein, 31-16:31. He comforts them with the assurance that He is going to the Father. 31-38. Announcement of the fact— its effect on Peter. Here commences that solemn and weighty portion of the Gospel (ch. 13:31-17:26) which Olshausen not without reason calls Allerheiligstes— ‘ the most holy place.’ He beautifully remarks, “ These were the last moments which the Lord spent in the midst of His own before His passion, and words full of heavenly meaning flowed during them from His holy lips:— all that His heart, glowing with love, had yet to say to His own, was compressed into this short space of time. At first the conversation with the disciples takes more the form of usual dialogue: reclining at the table, they mournfully reply to and question Him. But when (ch. 14:31) they had risen from the supper, the discourse of Christ took a higher form: surrounding their Master, the disciples listened to the Words of Life, and seldom spoke (only ch. 16:17, 29). Finally, in the sublime prayer of the great High Priest, the whole Soul of Christ flowed forth in earnest intercession for His own to His Heavenly Father.” Olsh. ii. 329. 31. νῦνἐδοξ .] It was not that the presence of Judas, as some have thought, hindered the great consummation imported by ἐδοξ ., but that the work on which he was gone out, was the actual commencement of that consummation: “ ab hinc enim passiones Christi initium capiebant.” Lampe. It is true that his presence hindered the expression of these gracious words: “ jam quasi obice rupto torrentes gratiæ a labiis Jesu effunduntur.” Id. ἐδοξάσθη — spoken proleptically as if accomplished, because the deed was actually in doing, which was to accomplish it. The glorifying spoken of here, and in δοξάσει , ver. 32, is not the same. This is the glorifying of God by Christ on earth, in His course of obedience as the Son of Man, which was completed by His death (ὑπήκοοςμέχριθανάτου , Philippians 2:8). And His death was the transition-point between God being glorified in Him, and He being glorified in God— manifested to be the Son of God with power by His resurrection, and received up to the Father, to sit at the right hand of God. This latter (ver. 32) is spoken of by Him here as future, but immediate on His death, and leads on to the address in ver. 33. ἐνἑαυτῷ is in God (the Father), not in Christ. ἑαυτ . reflects back on the subject of the sentence: and ἐν is not ‘ by means of,’ but in, by the resurrection of Him into that glory, which He had indeed before, but now has as the Son of Man, with the risen Manhood; so παρὰσεαντῷ , ch. 17:5. Grotius compares 1 Samuel 2:30 (τοὺςδοξάζοντάςμεδοξάσω LXX). ἀντιδωρεῖταιαὐτῷὁπατὴρτὸμεῖζονοὗὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπουπεποίηκεν . Origen. in Joan. tom. xxxii. 18, vol. iv. p. 451. 33. τεκνία — here only used by Christ— affectingly expresses His not only brotherly, but fatherly love (Isaiah 9:6) for His own, and at the same time their immature and weak state, now about to be left without Him. καθὼςεἶπ .] “ Noluit discipulis citius hoc dicere: infidelibus dixit citius.” Bengel. But naturally the two clauses, ‘ Ye shall seek Me and not find Me, and shall die in your sins,’ also spoken to the Jews (ch. 7:33; 8:21), are here omitted: and by this omission the connexion with ver. 34 is supplied;— ‘ Ye shall be left here: but, unlike the Jews, ye shall seek Me and shall find Me, and the way is that of Love,— to Me, and to one another (so Stier, v. 140 ff. edn. 2)— forming (ver. 35) an united Body, the Church, in which all shall recognize My presence among you as My disciples.’ 34. The καινότης of this commandment consists in its simplicity and (so to speak) unicity. The same kind of love was prescribed in the O.T. (see Romans 13:8):— ‘ as thyself’ is the highest measure of love, and it is therefore not in degree that the new commandment differs (, Euthym., Theod. Mops.) from the old, nor in extent, but in being the commandment of the new covenant,— the first-fruit of the Spirit in the new dispensation (Galatians 5:22): see 1 John 2:7, 1 John 2:8 (and note), where καινή is commented on by the Apostle himself. I cannot agree with Stier (v. 148, edn. 2), that ἵνα in the second sentence is not ║ . with ἵνα in the first, but signifies “ in order that &c.” The sentence is analogous to ver. 14, and the new point in it is the καθὼςἠγ . ὑμ ., which is therefore set first, and should be (as in E. V.) retained so. 35. πάντες ,— all the world,— and the object is to be, not mere vain praise or display before the world, but that men may be attracted by the exhibition of the Spirit of Christ, and won over to Him. The world, notwithstanding this proof of His presence among them, shall hate them: see 1 John 3:10-15. But among πάντες they themselves are also included— brotherly love is the true sign to them of being children of God, 1 John 2:3-5. 36. This announcement of Peter’ s denial is probably the same with that in Luke 22:33 ff., where see notes: but distinct from that on the way to Gethsemane, Matthew 26:34: Mark 14:30. ἀκ . δὲὕστ ., alluding probably both to the future reception of His Apostle into His glory, and to the particular path by which he should come to that glory;— as in ch. 21:18, 19. 37. Peter understands our Lord’ s death to be meant [as the time of his following]: see Luke, ver. 33. 38. The διὰτί is not answered— but Peter’ s boast solemnly questioned. See a somewhat similar question, ch. 1:51. There was at the same time a startling inversion of the subsequent facts, in this boast; to which our Lord, I think, alludes in His question,— τ . ψ . σουὑπὲρἐμοῦθήσεις ; The οὐμὴἀλέκ . φων . necessarily implies, as it was night, ἐντῇνυκτὶταύτῃ [Matt., Mark],— and binds the whole events of this chapter to ch. 18. Chap. 14:1-31. This first division of the great discourse (see above on ch. 13:31) is spent in more directly comforting the disciples for their Lord’ s departure, by the assurance of His going to the Father, and its consequences. 1-10. He, in his union with the Father, will take His own to Him. 1. A pause has intervened; “ Peter is humbled and silent” (Lü cke); the rest are ταρασσόμενοιτῇκαρδίᾳ on account of the sad things of which they had been hearing;— Judas’ s treachery,— Peter’ s denial,— the Lord’ s departure from them. πιστεύετε both times is imperative. So , Nonn., Thl., Euth., , ,— Lampe, Lü cke, De Wette, Stier, Tholuck (edn. 6), and A.V.R. Many (Erasmus, Beza, Grot., Olsh., also E. V.) take the first as indic., the second as imper., ‘ Ye believe in God: believe also in me.’ But this is inconsistent with the whole tenour of the discourse, which presupposes a want of belief in God in its full and true sense, as begetting trust in Him. Luther takes both as indicative. The command is intimately connected with ch. 13:31, 32— faith in the glorification of Christ in the Father, and of the Father in Him. 2. This comfort— of being reunited to their Lord— is administered to them as τεκνία , in forms of speech simple, and adapted to their powers of apprehension of spiritual things. The οἰκία is Heaven: Psalms 33:13, Psalms 33:14: Isaiah 63:15. In it are many (in number— not in degree of dignity, as , Basil., Theod., Chrys., Theophylact, , Hil., Aug., &c., at least no such meaning is here conveyed) abiding-places; room enough for them all;— ἱκαναὶδέξασθαικαὶὑμᾶςσυνεσομένουςἡμῖνἀεί . If not,— if they could not follow Him thither, He would not have concealed this from them. This latter assurance is one calculated to beget entire trust and confidence; He would not in any matter hold out vain hopes to them;— His word to them would plainly state all difficulties and discouragements,— as indeed He does, ch. 15:18; 16:1, 4; which last verse ἵναμνημ … ὅτιἐγὼεἶπονὑμῖν , is decisive for the above interpretation here, against those who would join ὅτιπορεύομαι … with εἷπονἂνὑμῖν (Euthym., Aug., Erasm., Luther, Bengel):— which besides does violence to the next verse, where the ‘ going to prepare a place’ is stated as a fact. The ὅτι may, it is true, have been inserted as a ὅτι recitantis, to favour the view just controverted: but it is much more probably genuine, signifying because, and belongs to the whole sense of vv. 1, 2, as a reason why their heart should not be troubled. The sense confidently proposed for the many mansions by a correspondent,— that He was going to one part of His Father’ s house, while they would remain in another, that house being not Heaven, but the Universe,— is entirely put out of the question, as being frigid in the extreme under the solemn circumstances,— as being contrary to all Scripture analogy of expression,— and as inconsistent with the πορεὑομαιἑτοιμάσαιτόπονὑμῖν , where the τόπος is of necessity correlative with the μοναί , which are in that οἰκία whither He is going. Besides, their earthly μικρὸςχρόνος could in no sense be called a μονή . The ἑτοιμάσαιτόπον is that of which we sing,— “ When Thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death, Thou didst open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers:” see note on Luke 23:43. And thus it is τόπον , not τὰςμονάς :— the place as a whole, not each man’ s place in it. 3. On ἐάν (not ‘ when,’ here or any where), see note, ch. 12:32. Here there is no translation of feeling: only in the extract from Hermann there, we may read ‘ experientiâ cognoscetur.’ In order to understand this, we must bear in mind what Stier well calls the ‘ perspective’ of prophecy. The coming again of the Lord is not one single act,— as His resurrection, or the descent of the Spirit, or His second personal advent, or the final coming to judgment; but the great complex of all these, the result of which shall be, His taking His people to Himself to be where He is. This ἔρχομαι , is begun (ver. 18) in His Resurrection— carried on (ver. 23) in the spiritual life (see also ch. 16:22 f.), the making them ready for the place prepared;— -further advanced when each by death is fetched away to be with Him (Philippians 1:23); fully completed at His coming in glory, when they shall for ever be with Him (1 Thessalonians 4:17) in the perfected resurrection state. 4. And where (whither) I go ye know the way. They might have known, and doubtless did know in some sense; but, as Lampe remarks, “ interdum quis laudatur ut officii sui moneatur.” We use thus ‘ you know,’ — leaving to be supplied, ‘ if you would give the matter thought.’ ὅπου , to the Father; τὴνὁδόν (in our Lord’ s own case, of which this verse treats), His death. 5. Thomas is slow of belief and apprehension. The answer to ποῦὑπάγεις ; ch. 13:37, which Peter seems to have apprehended, was not sufficient for him: see ch. 20:25: ᾤετογάρ , says Euthym., αἰσθητὸνεἶναίτινατόπονὅπουὑπάγει , καὶὁδὸνὁμοίωςτοιαύτην . 6. Our Lord, as Lü cke (after Bengel) remarks (ii. 596), inverts the order of Thomas’ s question, and in answering it practically, for them, speaks of ‘ the Way’ first. He is the Way; not merely the Forerunner; which would imply on our part only an outward connexion with Him as His followers:— but the way, in and on which we must go, having an inner union with and in Him (De Wette): see Hebrews 10:20. ἡἀλήθεια — more than ὅτιἀληθεύωκ . πάντωςἔσταιταῦτα , Euth. It is another side of the same idea of the Way;— God being true, and only approached by and in truth. Christ is the Truth, in Whom only (Colossians 2:3 that Knowledge of Him is gained, which (ch. 17:3) is eternal life. ἡζωή — not merely because οὐδὲὁθάνατοςδιαστήσειὑμᾶςἐμοῦ , Euthym.,— but as being the Life (see ver. 19: Galatians 2:20) of all His, in Whom only they who live can come to the living Father (ch. 6:57). οὐδεὶςἔρχ .… ] This plainly states the ποῦὑπάγω , and the way also. δι ʼ ἐμοῦ — as τῆςὁδοῦ . 7. See ch. 8:19. ἀπ ʼ ἄρτι ] There is no difficulty, if we bear in mind the νῦν of ch. 13:31. The henceforth is the future time, beginning with our Lord’ s glorification, which was now at hand. Lü cke remarks: “ ἀπ ʼ ἄρτι is not entirely future nor entirely present, but the moment of transition, the identification of the present and future. Christ speaks here proleptically, in reference to the hour of His glorification being come” (ii. 598). 8. Philip misunderstands ἑωρ . to mean ‘ seeing in a vision,’ — and intimates that one such sight of God would set at rest all their fears, and give them perfect confidence. 9. The Son is the only Exponent of the Father to men: see ch. 12:44, 45: Colossians 1:15: Hebrews 1:3: 1 Timothy 6:16. This seeing of the Father in Him, is not only seeing His bodily presence, but knowing Him . 10. See ch. 10:30, 38, and for the latter clause ch. 8:28, where the contrast is, as here, purposely inexact in diction,— words being placed in one member and works in the other: and, as there, ἔργα and ῥήματα are taken as correlative and co-extensive;— all the working of the Lord Jesus being a λαλιά , a revelation of the Father. De Wette supposes both ἔργα and ῥήμ . to be understood in both places. Without the [ὁ ], the sense will be, of course, the Father, abiding in Me.… ποιεῖτὰἔργααὐτοῦ ] doeth His works: they are not Mine, but His, done in and by Me: but ἐνἐμοί , present and abiding, so that ὁἑωρακὼςἐμὲἑώρακεντὸνπατέρα . 11-24. Jesus will make proof of His abiding union with the Father, in His union with His own: and this, vv. 12-14, in answering prayer: vv. 15-17, in the sending of the Spirit: vv. 18 ff., as a pledge of the completion of this union in His personal return. The Lord now unfolds out of this ποιεῖτὰἔργααὐτοῦ , the great promise of the Paraclete. διὰτὰἔργααὐτά ] See ch. 10:38. The object here seems to be, to fix their attention on the works as a plain testimony even to such as could not simply believe so deep a thing on His assertion , and one which (ver. 12) should become subjective in themselves hereafter,— by virtue of their living union with Him who is gone to the Father, and become the dispenser and channel of the Spirit. “ Qui Christo de se loquenti credit, in Christum credit.” Bengel. μείζ . τούτων ] This word μείζ . is not to be evaded (so as to = πλείονα , Lampe), but taken in its full strict sense. And the keys to its meaning will be found ch. 1:51; 5:20. The works which Jesus did, His Apostles also did,— scil., raising the dead, &c.;— greater works than those, they did,— not in degree, but in kind: spiritual works, under the dispensation of the Spirit, which had not yet come in. But they did them, not as separate from Him: but in Him, and by Him; and so (ch. 5:21) He is said to do them. The work which He did by Peter’ s sermon, Act_2, was one of these μείζονατούτων ,— the first-fruits of the unspeakable gift. This union of them with and in Him is expressed here by τὰἔρ . ἃἐγὼποιῶ , κἀκεῖνοςποιήσει . “ He has sown, we reap; and the harvest is greater than the seed-time,” Stier. v. 189, edn. 2. 13. I have retained the period after πορεύομαι , because the sense remains much the same, and the style is better preserved. αἰτήσητε , scil. τὸνπατέρα : so ch. 15:16; 16:23. But this does not exclude, but distinctly includes, prayer to Christ; so blended are these two (as the ὁρᾶν , ver. 9), that we have not ποιήσει , but ποιήσω , and, ver. 14, emphatically ἐγὼποιήσω . He who prays to the Father, prays to the Son. This ποιήσω answers to the ποιήσει in ver. 12; the reason why you shall do these greater works, is, on account of the all-powerful Spirit of grace and supplication which My going to the Father shall bring down upon the Church; in answer to which Spirit, I will do by you whatever in My Name (i.e. in union with Me, as being Mine, manifesting forth Jesus as the Son of God) ye shall ask. And the end of this is, that by these μείζονατούτων , the wonders of grace and triumphs of the Spirit, the Father may be glorified (His glory shewn forth) in and by the Son. Ver. 14 solemnly repeats as a promise, what was incidentally asserted before: ‘ For this is a truth, that whatever’ &c. And besides, adds the ἐγώ : it is I that will do it: shewing that the use of the first person before was emphatic. “ ἐγώ hoc jam indicat gloriam.” — Bengel. Ver. 15 is a following out of the ἐντῷὀνόματίμου : ‘ That way of prayer is the way of loving obedience, in which the Spirit is ever found, and which is only trodden by His help:’ — and also of ἵναδοξ . ὁπ . ἐντῷνἱ ., ‘ As the Father is honoured in the Son, so must the Son be honoured in you:’ see ch. 15:10. 16. And then the Spirit shall proceed forth upon you. Not αἰτήσω , but ἐρωτήσω — “ familiaris petendi modus,” Bengel:— rather perhaps, a manner of asking implying actual presence and nearness,— and here used of the mediatorial office in Christ’ s ascended state. παράκλητον ] Olshausen remarks that the interpretations of this word range themselves in two classes, which again by no means exclude one another:— those of ‘ Comforter,’ and those of ‘ Advocate.’ (“ Teacher” (Theodore of Mopsuest. and Ernesti) is out of the question.) The etymology of the word requires the latter as its strict meaning, and in this strict meaning it satisfies 1 John 2:1, παράκλητονἔχομενπρὸςτὸνπατέραἸησοῦνχριστόν : but not so all the places where it is used of the Holy Spirit,— nor this verse, where of the Son and Spirit both. And therefore the other meaning,— Comforter, including as it does in its fulness (see Romans 8:26, where both, the συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι and the ὑπερεντυγχάνειν , are united) the Advocate also, has been both here and in Germany (Troster, Luther) sanctioned by Christian usage as the most adequate rendering. See Archdeacon Hare’ s Mission of the Comforter, vol. ii. note J a. He shews that Wicliff, from whom we have our Comforter, often used “ comfort” for the Latin comfortari, as e.g. Luke 22:43: Acts 9:19 . Thus the idea of help and strength is conveyed by it, as well as of consolation. It was this office (comfortari) which Jesus had filled to His disciples while with them:— and which the Holy Spirit was to fill even more abundantly (and in a higher sense, because their state would be higher) on the removal of Jesus from them. 17. τὸπν . τ . ἀλ ., not ‘ the true Spirit,’ — but ‘ the Spirit of truth;’ — the Spirit Who is truth, 1 John 5:6,— of Whom all truth comes, and who alone leads into the whole truth, the truth of God, ch. 16:13. ὁκόσμος = οἱψυχικοί , 1 Corinthians 2:14, those who live according to the desires of the flesh and the mind, and have no receptivity of the things of God. θεωρεῖ sometimes = γινώσκει , but not here, as being separated from it by οὐδέ : ‘ recognizes not in His operations (obj.) nor knows (subj.);’ — has neither sight nor knowledge of. γινώσκετε — present, but spoken of their state as disciples opposed to the world,— and proleptically, as before. They were even now not of the world (ch. 15:19), and are therefore viewed in the completion of their state as opposed to it. μένει (not μενεῖ as Vulg. and some other vss.) is rightly explained by De Wette to be future in signification, as any present predication of permanence must necessarily be; abideth, as μένει , ch. 8:35. Euthym. understands παρ ʼ ὑμ . μένει of the Spirit abiding in Jesus, Who was among them: but wrongly. ἐστίν ] This was perhaps corrected to the future, because, though their knowledge of the Spirit proper to their complete state, and His dwelling, remaining, among them, had in some inferior sense begun,— His dwelling in them had not. See Hare, Mission of the Comforter, ii. note I. With the reading ἐστίν , the prolepsis is still stronger. 18. ὀρφ . should be orphans, as in the E. V. . The office of the παράκλ . is to connect the disciples with the Father: if therefore they had Him not, they would be fatherless. The expression connects with τεκνία ch. 13:33, and as Euthym., springs from πατρικὴεὐσπλαγχνία . This makes ἔρχομαι , I am coming, plain, as applying to the coming by the Spirit, who is one with Christ;— not only the ultimate personal coming, which is but the last step of the ἔρχομαι , nor only the bodily coming again to them and not to the world at the Resurrection, which was but a pledge of His lasting presence in the Spirit: see on ver. 3. ἔρχομαι is (as there) the complex of these— the great Revisitation, in all its blessed progress. The absence of any connecting particle as γάρ , with ἔρχομαι , arises (Meyer) from the depth of affection in the Lord’ s heart. 19-21. This ἔρχομαι is explained to consist in His presence among them by the life of His Resurrection, which is theirs; by (ver. 20) the witness of the Spirit in their hearts; and (ver. 21) their sanctification by the Spirit in love, and the consequent manifestation of Jesus to them. Luthardt (ii. p. 309 f.) attempts to confine ἔρχομαι (and this whole passage) to the παρουσία , in spite of the plain sense of vv. 19, 20, relying on the analogy of Rev 22:17, and saying that on the common interpretation, the Church would have no cause to long for her Lord: and so Aug., Maldon., Hofm., al. But manifestly the context is against him: and he must thus explain away many other passages (e.g. Matthew 18:20). The presence of Christ by the Spirit is none the less real, for being incomplete. 19. The immediate reference of this θεωρεῖτε is to the forty days (see Acts 10:41)— but only as leading on to its wider and deeper reference to the spiritual life. ζῶ , not ζήσω — the principle of Life being immanent in Him. ζήσετε , in all its fulness, including the most blessed sense of ζωή ,— the Life of the Spirit,— here and hereafter. See Meyer’ s note. 20. ἐκ . τῇἡμ ., no particular day: but ‘ each of these periods, as its continually increasing light breaks upon you, shall bring increased knowledge of your unity in Me with the Father, and my dwelling in you by the Spirit.’ If any particular day is to be thought of, it would naturally be the Pentecost. 21. ἔχωνκ . τηρῶν , “ qui habet in memoria et servat in vita.” Aug. in loc. Or perhaps more accurately (with Stier). “ He who has my commandments, as being my disciple by outward profession (not thus only: but holds them, by the inner possession of a living faith. So Meyer), and keeps them:” see Luke 11:28. And τηρ . is more of the inner will to keep them, than the absolute observance, which can only follow on high degrees of spiritual advancement. ἐμφ . αὐτ . ἐμ ., by the Holy Spirit: see ch. 16:14. This (as Stier observes) is the highest promise which can be made to man (see ver. 23), and yet it is made to every man who ἔχεικ . τηρεῖ the commandments of the Lord Jesus. Cf. Exod. in reff. 22. Ἰούδας , οὐχὁἸσκ . = ἸούδαςἸακώβου of Luke 6:16: see note on Matthew 10:2 ff. Meyer remarks that the οὐχὁἸσκαριώτης is pragmatically superfluous, after ch. 13:30, but is added by St. John from his deep horror of the Traitor who bore the same name. The question seems to be put with the Jewish idea, that the Messiah, the King and Judge of the nations, must necessarily manifest himself to the world. [καί preceding an interrogation, expresses astonishment at what has just been said, and, assuming it, connects to it a conclusion which appears to refute or cast doubt on it. So Eur. Med. 1388,— ὦτέκναφίλτατα ! “ μητρίγε , σοὶδ ʼ οὔ .” κἄπειτ ʼ ἔκτας ; See more examples in Hartung, i. p. 146, and cf. Kü hner on Xen. Mem. p. 117. τίγέγ . ὅτι ] What has happened, that … ? i.e. how is it, that … ? 23, 24. These verses contain the answer to the question in both its parts:— ἡμῖν , because love to Christ, leading to the keeping of His word, is the necessary condition of the indwelling and manifestation in man of the Father and the Son;— οὐχὶτῷκόσμῳ , because want of love to Christ, leading to neglect of His words, necessarily excludes from communion with the Father and the Son, and the Spirit, who reveals the Son in man. “ The addition πρὸςαὐτὸνἐλευσ . κ . μονὴνπαρ ʼ αὐτῷποιησ . makes this incapacity still plainer and more deeply felt.” Meyer. For (καί , and hence you may infer what I am setting forth) the word which ye hear ,— is not Mine, but the Father’ s . On the gracious and wonderful promise of ver. 23, see Romans 8:15. 25-31. His farewell, and the parting bequest of His Love. 25. λελάληκα is proleptic, referring, as εἶπον (ver. 26), to the futures, διδάξει and ὑπομνήσει . Meyer supposes that a pause took place here, and the Lord looks back on what He had said to them. But this does not seem so natural. 26. q. d. ‘ I know that ye do not understand them yet: but’ &c. τὸπν . τὸἅγ .] The Paraclete is now more closely defined by this well-known Name,— and, by ὃπέμψειὁπατήρ , and ἐκεῖνος … , designated personally, as One sent, and One acting on them. ἐντῷὀν . μου , not, ‘ in My stead,’ but in regard of Me— ‘ in answer to My prayer, and prayers in My name,— to those who bear My name,— and as a means of manifesting Me.’ διδάξ . πάντα stands by itself, not with ἃεἶπον :— shall teach you all things;— ‘ all that can and may be learnt by you, all that belongs to your work and life in Me.’ ὑπομνήσει ] What is not understood is liable to be forgotten;— and therefore in this word is implied the giving them a right understanding of, as well as recalling, what Jesus had said to them: see ch. 2:22; 12:16. It is on the fulfilment of this promise to the Apostles, that their sufficiency as Witnesses of all that the Lord did and taught, and consequently the authenticity of the gospel narrative, is grounded. 27. This is introduced by ver. 25, which suggests the speedy close of the discourse. It was customary to take leave with wishes of peace:— so 1 Samuel 1:17: Luke 7:50: Acts 16:36: 1 Peter 5:14: 3 John 15. Also, to reassure by such words, see Genesis 43:23: Judges 6:23. But our Lord distinguishes His peace, true peace, ‘ the peace which I have and give’ (see ch. 15:11), from the mere empty word used in the world’ s form of greeting. Peace (in general) He leaves with them;— His peace He gives to them, over and above that other. The καθὼςὁκ . δίδ . must refer, I think (with Lampe, Lü cke, and Stier), to the world’ s manner of giving,— not to the unreality of the world’ s peace, of which, however true, there is no direct mention here. The world can only give peace in empty formulæ , saying ‘ Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace: Jeremiah 6:14. al. Ver. 28 as far as ὑμᾶς is a reason why their heart should not be troubled;— then the rest of the verse removes all ground of δειλία , since it is an exaltation of Him whom they loved, which is about to happen; and therefore a ground of joy, and not of fear. μείζων ] And therefore the going of Jesus to the Father is an advancement. This word greater, as Luther well remarks (Stier, v. 228, edn. 2), is not here used as referring to the Nature or Essence of the Son as related to the Father,— but as indicating that particular subordination to the Father in which the Lord Jesus then was,— and the cessation of the state of humiliation, and entering into His glory, which would take place on His being received up to the Father. So also Calvin: “ Non confert hic Christus Patris Divinitatem cum sua, nec humanam suam naturam divinæ Patris essentiæ comparat, sed potius statum præ sentem cœ lesti gloriæ ad quam mox recipiendus erat.” And Cocceius: “ Non intelligitur hic minoritas secundum naturam humanam,— quia intelligitur minoritas quæ per profectionem ad Patrem deponitur” (Stier, ibid. Similarly, De Wette, Tholuck). And this removes all reason for fear, as they will be exalted in Him. The whole doctrinal controversy which has been raised on these words (especially by the Fathers against the Arians, see Suicer, Thes. ii. pp. 1368-9), seems not to belong to the sense of the passage. That there is a sense in which the Father is greater than even the glorified Son, is beyond doubt (see especially 1 Corinthians 15:27 f.); but as on the one hand that concession is no concession to Arianism, because it is not in the essential being of the Son, but in His Mediatorial office that this minoritas consists,— so on the other hand this verse implies in itself no such minoritas, the discourse being of another kind. 29. εἴρηκα — viz. ‘ the prophecies of My Resurrection and Ascension,’ &c. πιστεύσητε ] See ch. 13:19, where ὅτιἐγώεἰμι is supplied. That ye may believe, in the fullest sense of the word. “ Neque enim Eum Dei Filium non et ante credebant: sed cum in Illo factum esset quod ante præ dixit, fides illa quæ tunc quando illis loquebatur fuit parva, et cum moreretur pæ ne jam nulla, et revixit et crevit.” Aug. in Joann. Tract. lxxix. 1. 30. οὐκἔτιπολλὰλαλ .:— then, as Stier remarks, He had some words more to say, and was not about to break off at ver. 31, as some have supposed: cf. Grotius: “ q. d., temporis angustiæ abripiunt verba.” ὁτ . κόσ . ἄρχων ] i.e. Satan:— not, Satan in Judas, but Satan himself, with whom the Lord was in conflict during His passion: see Luke 4:13 (and note), and 22:53. ἐνἐμοὶοὐκἔχοὐδ .] “ Nullum scilicet omnino peccatum.” Aug. ibid. 2. This is the only true interpretation: has nothing in Me— no point of appliance whereon to fasten his attack. But Meyer well observes, that this is rather the fact to be assumed as the ground of what is here said, than the thing itself which is said. De Wette, Lü cke, Tholuck, and many others render it, “ has no power over me,” — οὐδὲναἴτιονθανάτου , Euthym. 31. ‘ But my Death is an act of voluntary obedience, that it may be known that I love and obey the Father— that the glory of the Father in and by Me may be manifested.’ The construction is elliptic: supply, ‘ But (his power over Me for death will be permitted by Me) that,’ &c. And set a period at ποιῶ , as usually done. Meyer, al., and Luthardt, would carry on the sense from ποιῶ , “ But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father commanded me, thus I do, arise, let us go hence.” I need only put it to the inner feeling of any who have learned to appreciate the majesty and calmness of our Lord’ s discourses, whether a sentence so savouring of theatrical effect is likely to have been spoken by Him. We may notwithstanding safely believe that the ἐγ . ἄγ . ἐντ ., without this connexion, does undoubtedly express the holy boldness of the Lord in going to meet that which was to come upon Him, and is for that reason inserted by St. John. ἐγείρ ., ἄγ . ἐντ .] These words imply a movement from the table to depart. Probably the rest of the discourse, and the prayer, ch. 17, were delivered when now all were standing ready to depart. There would be some little pause, in which the preparations for departure would be made. But the place is clearly the same, see ch. 18:1, ταῦταεἰπὼνὁἸησοῦςἐξῆλθεν :— besides which, we can hardly suppose (Grot., &c.) discourses of a character like those in ch. 15, 16 to have been delivered to as many as eleven persons, while walking by the way, and in a time of such publicity as that of the Paschal Feast. Still less is the supposition of Bengel and Beausobre probable,— that ch. 13, 14 happened outside the city, and that between ch. 14 and 15 the paschal meal takes place. Compare also ch. 13:30, which is decisive against this idea. Chap. 15:1-27. Injunction to vital union in love with Jesus and one another. 1-11. Their relation to Him. Various suggestive circumstances have been imagined, but none of them are satisfactory. The vineyards on the way to Gethsemane (Lampe),— the carved vine on the great doors of the temple (Rosenmü ller, Bibl. Exeget. Repert. i. 166 (Lü cke),— see Jos. B. J. v. 5. 4: Antt. xv. 11. 3); a vine trained about the window of the guest-chamber (Knapp, Lü cke conj., Tholuck, 6), are all fanciful, and the two first (see on ch. 14:31) inapplicable. The cup, so lately partaken (Meyer, Stier), is certainly nearer,— see below. But I believe with Lü cke that most probably the Lord did not take the similitude from any outward suggesting occasion, but as a means of illustrating the great subject, the inner unity of Himself and His. Occasion enough was furnished, by the O.T. symbolism of the vineyard and the vine,— Isaiah 5:1 ff.: Jeremiah 2:21: Ezekiel 19:10 ff., and especially Psalms 80:8-19: by the intimate analogy of vegetable life (of which the tree bearing fruit is the highest kind, and of such trees the vine the noblest) with spiritual, and perhaps also by the γέννηματῆςἀμπ . having been so recently the subject of their attention and the Lord’ s prophecy, Luke 22:18. 1. The Vine and branches stand in a much nearer connexion than the Shepherd and the sheep, or the lord of the vineyard and the vines; and answer to the Head and members in Ephesians 5:23, Ephesians 5:30: Colossians 2:19, linked together by a common organization, and informed by one and the same life. ἡἀληθινή , not only, ‘ by which prophecy is fulfilled:’ not only, “ in which the organism and qualities of the vine are most nobly realized” (Tholuck), but as in ch. 1:9, true, i.e. original, archetypal. The material creations of God are only inferior examples of that finer spiritual life and organism in which the creature is raised up to partake of the divine nature; only ἀντίτυπυ , τῶνἀληθινῶν , Hebrews 9:24; ὑποδείγματατῶνἐντοῖςοὐρ ., ib. 23: see ch. 6:32. ὁγεωργός , not only the tiller of the land, but the vine-planter and dresser; He who has originated the relation between the vine and branches by planting the Vine in this earth (the nature of man), and who looks for and ensures the bringing forth of fruit. 2. The Vine contains fruitful, and unfruitful branches. Who are these unfruitful branches? Who are the branches? Clearly, all those who, adopting the parallel image, are made members of Christ by baptism, Romans 6:3, Romans 6:4: compare σύμφυτοι , ib. ver. 5, also Romans 11:17 ff. The Vine is the visible Church here, of which Christ is the inclusive Head: the Vine contains the branches; hence the unfruitful, as well as the fruitful, are ἐνἐμοί . Every such unfruitful branch the Father αἴρει ,— pulls off and casts away: and every one that beareth fruit He καθαίρει (an allusion to αἴρει , but only in the Greek (?): “ suavis rhythmus,” Bengel), prunes, by cleansing it of its worthless parts, and shortening its rank growth, that it may ripen and enlarge its fruit better. Cf. Æ sch. in Ctes. (iii. 166, quoting Demosthenes), ἀμπελουργοῦσίτινεςτὴνπόλινἀνατετμήκασίτινεςτὰκλήματατοῦδήμου . The two, πᾶνκλ ., καὶπᾶν .… , are pendent nominatives, a construction usual with John in connexion with πᾶν , see ch. 6:39; 17:2. 3. καθαροί ] See ch. 13:10. In Ephesians 5:26, we have both the washing διὰτὸνλόγον , and the word , united. The word of Christ dwelling in them by Faith (see ver. 7) is the purifying principle (ch. 17:17). But the καθαροί here is not = κεκαθαρμένοι , pruned, in the sense of ver. 2. The ἤδη limits it to their present capacities and standing. There was more pruning at hand, when the sap should begin to flow,— when the Spirit should be shed abroad; and this future handling of the γεωργός is indicated by μείνατεἐνἐμοί .… 4. κἀγὼἐνὑμ . must not (with , Meyer, and Lü cke) be taken as a promise, which (see on ἐνἐμοί above) would be contrary to the sense: but as a clause dependent on μείνατεἐνἐμοί , ‘ Take care that ye abide in Me and I in you:’ both these being necessary to the bringing forth fruit: see ver. 5, where the two are similarly bound together. Here the natural strictness of the similitude is departed from. The branch cannot sever itself from the vine: but, such a case supposed, every one will see the inevitable consequence. Bengel says well, “ Hic locus egregie declarat discrimen naturæ et gratiæ .” It is the permitted freewill of the creature which makes the difference between the branches in the two cases. 5. The interpretation of the allegory which each mind was forming for itself, the Lord solemnly asserts for them. Notice οὗτος — he and no other: ‘ it is he, that.… ’ χωρὶςἐμ . is more than ‘ without Me,’ it = χωρισθέντεςἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦ (.), separate from Me, from being in Me and I in you. The ὅτι regards what is implied in χωρὶςἐμ . οὐδ . π . οὐδ . rather than the word themselves: because union with Me is the sole efficient cause of fruit being produced, you having no power to do any thing (not, ποιεῖνκαρπόν : for φέρειν is here used throughout), to bring any thing to perfection, to do any of the ἀρεταί of that which ye are, separate from Me. 6. This verse is a most important testimony against supra-lapsarian error, shewing us that falling from grace is possible, and pointing out the steps of the fall. Observe this is not said of the unfruitful branch, which the Father takes away (in judgment): but of one who will not abide in Christ, becomes separate from Him: (1) is cast out (of the vineyard, or of the Vine) like a (τὸκλῆμα , scil. τὸἄχρηστον , Euth.) branch in such a case: (2) becomes dried up, having lost the supply of life-giving sap (“ quenched the Spirit,” 1 Thessalonians 5:19): (3) is gathered up with other such (Matthew 13:40) by the angels at the great day: (4) is cast into the fire, as the result of that judgment; and finally (5) ‘ burneth;’ not ‘ is burned,’ in any sense of being consumed; und muss brennen, Luther. The aorists I take with Meyer as a consequence of the whole being spoken by our Lord as if the great day were come: hence also the presents, βάλλουσιν and καίεται . 7. All bringing forth fruit is the result of answered prayer for the assisting grace of God: and therefore the answer of all prayer is here promised to those who abide in Christ and have His word (Hebrews 6:5) abiding in them. αἰτήσασθε is the imperative used proleptically of the future time. This not having been seen, it has probably been altered to αἰτήσεσθε : see ch. 14:13. ὃἐὰνθέλητε , in the supposed case, is necessarily in the way of God’ s will, and as tending to πολὺνκαρπὸνφέρειν . 8. ἐντούτῳ belongs to the following, not the preceding: ἐντούτῳ , ἵνα .… as in E. V., see reff. ἐδοξάσθη again is proleptic, representing that in the spiritual dispensation the fact is habitually so. See on this sense of the aorist, Winer, edn. 6, § 40. 5. b. 2. The πολὺςκαρπός is not merely ‘ large success in the apostolic mission,’ but ‘ individual advance in bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit.’ καὶγένησθε ] and that ye may become My (true) disciples, ἀπαρτισθήσεσθε , Euthym. (reading the future, see below.) “ Fundamentum Christianismi, fieri discipulum Christi: fastigium, esse discipulum Christi.” Bengel. According to the reading γενήσεσθε , the actual result of what precedes is stated: and so ye shall become … 9. The Love between the Father and Christ is compared with that between Christ and His disciples. The sense is best served by placing a colon (as in E. V.) after ὑμᾶςἠγάπησα , making μείνατεκ .τ .λ . a separate injunction, and κἀγώ = οὕτως . With only a comma at ἠγάπησα , that which is the great assertion of the sentence, is suffered to slip by unnoticed; viz. that ‘ as the Father hath loved the Son, so the Son His disciples.’ τῇἀγ . τῇἐμῇ may be rendered the love of Me, as in Luke 22:19 ║ 1 Cor.,— but the sense is not good, and the expression is not parallel with τῇἀγ . μου in ver. 10; so that I prefer my love, the love which I have towards you; remain in it: do not cast yourselves out of it. The other sense is implied in this, but not expressed. 10. The way thus to remain is prescribed; even that way of simple obedience to His Will, which He followed to the Will of the Father. On τῇἀγάπῃμου , see above: in the last clause, αὐτοῦ is prefixed, as Meyer well says, to denote the high consciousness of bliss and dignity in abiding in the Father’ s love. 11. λελάλ . again proleptic, hastening to the end of the discourse, and treating it as ended. ἡχαρὰἡἐμή , not “ joy concerning Me” (Euthym.), nor “ joy derived from Me” (De Wette), nor “ My joy over you” (Aug., Lampe, Lü cke, former edd.), but My joy, properly speaking : “ His own holy exultation, the joy of the Son in the consciousness of the love of God, of His Unity with the Father: see ver. 10.” (Lü cke, 3rd edn.) κ . ἡχ . ὑμ . πλ .] That their joy might, by the indwelling of that His Joy, be uplifted and ennobled even to fulness,— to the extreme of their capability and satisfaction,— and might remain so. 12-17. Union in love with one another enjoined on them. 12. That He may shew them that it is no rigid code of keeping commandments in the legal sense, ver. 11 is inserted, and now the commandment (as including all others) is again explained (see ch. 13:34) to be, mutual love,— and that, after His example of Love to them. 13. A difficulty has been unnecessarily found in this verse, because St. Paul, Romans 5:6 ff., cites it as a nobler instance of love, that Christ died for us when we were enemies. But manifestly here the example is from common life, in which if a man did lay down his life it would naturally be for his friends; and would be, and is cited as, the greatest example of love. Nor again is there any doctrinal difficulty: our Lord does not assert of himself, that He laid down his life only for his friends (as defined in the next verse), but puts forward this side of his Love as a great and a practical example for his followers. His own great Sacrifice of Himself lies in the background of this verse; but only in the background, and with but one side of it seen, viz. his Love to them. See 1 Timothy 4:10, and compare 1 John 3:16. ἵνα , as in ver. 8, depends on αὕτη , not on any will implied in ἀγάπη (De Wette), nor used ἐκβατικῶς (Olsh.),— and answers to ‘ scilicet, ut:’ see on this use of ἵνα , note on 1 Corinthians 14:13. Ver. 14 parallel to ver. 10,— and, like it, guarded, in vv. 15, 16, 17, from legal misinterpretation. Ver. 15 proleptically spoken, of the state in which He would place them under the Spirit. Nor is there any discrepancy with ch. 13:13, 16, and ver. 20 here, which are also spoken of their future condition: for in that sense both relations subsist together. It is the lower sense of δοῦλος which is brought out in this verse. The proleptical character of the saying is clearly shewn in the οὐκοἶδεντίποιεῖὁκ ., for this was precisely their present condition, but was after His Ascension changed into light and knowledge. ἐγνώρισαὑμ .] Here again the allusion must be (see ch. 16:12) to their future state under the dispensation of the Spirit: nay, even to the fulness and completion of it, as Aug. remarks, Tract. lxxxvi. 1, vol. iii. pt. ii.: compare the confession of one of the greatest Apostles, 1 Corinthians 13:10. “ Sicut immortalitatem carnis et salutem animarum futuram exspectamus, quamvis jam pignore accepto salvi facti esse dicamur: ita omnium notitiam quæ cumque Unigenitus audivit a Patre, futuram sperare debemus, quamvis hoc jam se fecisse dixerit Christus.” Aug. ut supra. 16. See 1 John 4:10, 1 John 4:19. Further proof of His love, in his choosing His, when they had not chosen Him. ἔθηκα ] appointed: see Acts 13:47: 1 Thessalonians 5:9, and reff. Euth., Chrys., Thl. explain it ἐφύτευσα , in the parabolic sense. But the parable seems to be no further returned to than in the allusion implied in καρπός . ‘ Ordained,’ in E. V., is objectionable, as conveying a wrong idea. ὑπάγ . κ . καρ . φέρ .] ὑπ . probably merely expresses (see ref. and Matthew 18:15; Matthew 19:21, and πορευόμενοι , Luke 8:14) the activity of living and developing principle; not the missionary journeys of the Apostles (Grot., Lampe, Meyer). The καρπός is not the Church, to be founded by the Apostles, and endure;— this is evident, for here the fruit is spoken of with reference to themselves, and their ripening into the full stature of Christ. Much of their fruit will be necessarily the winning of others to Christ: but that is not the prominent idea here. μένῃ ] See 2 John 1:8: Revelation 14:13. ἵναὅτιἂν … ] This ἵνα is parallel with the former one, not the result of it; the two, the bringing forth of fruit and the obtaining answer to prayer, being co-ordinate with each other; but (vv. 7, 8) the bearing fruit to God’ s glory is of these the greater, being the result and aim of the other. 17. ταῦτα refers (as almost always in John, see vv. 11, 21; 16:1, 25, 33; 17:1; 18:1 .) back to what has gone before. ‘ The object of my enjoining these things on you is (for all since ver. 12 has been an expansion of καθὼςἠγ . ὑμ .) that ye love one another’ (see 1 John 4:11). Then from the indefiniteness of this word ἀλλήλους our Lord takes occasion to forewarn them that however wide their love to one another, they cannot bring all within this category; there will be ὁκόσμος , which will hate them. 18-27. Their relation to the world: and, vv. 18-21, ground of the world’ s hatred. On the connexion, see above. 18. See ch. 7:7. γινώσκετε , most probably imperative, know ye.… The assertion of their knowledge of the fact would in all likelihood be conveyed in the past tense, οἴδατε , or ἔγνωτε , or ἐγνώκατε : cf. for the imperative, ch. 24:43: Luke 10:11; Luke 12:39: Galatians 3:7: Hebrews 13:23; for the indicative, ch. 14:17: Acts 20:34: 2 Corinthians 8:9: Philippians 2:22: 1 John 2:29 (see note there); 4:2; for both combined, Matthew 24:32, Matthew 24:33 ║ ; for the past tense in assertion, Luke 16:4: ch. 5:42; 6:69; 8:52, 55 al. The great proof of this hatred to Him was yet to come, but is viewed as past. This knowledge brings comfort, 1 Peter 4:12, 1 Peter 4:13. Ver. 19 not only explains this hatred, but derives additional comfort from it, as a sign that they were not (any longer) of the world; but chosen out of it by Him, and endued with a new life from above. In τὸἴδιονἐφίλει , not ὑμᾶςἐφ ., we have the true practice of the world hinted at, and the false character of the world’ s love, as a mere φιλαυτία , set forth. “ Suum dicitur pro vos, atque sic notatur Interesse mundi,” Bengel. In this ‘ loving their own,’ the children of this world fall into hating one another. Meyer remarks the solemnity of κόσμος thus repeated five times. 20. Ch. 13:16, but with a different reference: the sense here being, ‘ Remember the saying, for it is true in this matter also:’ see Matthew 10:24, where it is used in the same sense. The subject of ἐδίωξαν is ὁκόσμος as a noun of number. A difficulty has been raised on ἐτήρησαν … τηρήσουσιν , and some have wanted to give this word a hostile sense, (as παρατηρεῖν ,) quoting Matthew 27:36, and Genesis 3:15 (which is altogether an exceptional use, the reading being undoubtedly genuine): see also Jeremiah 20:13. But in John this cannot be. Nor is irony (Lampe, Stier) in this latter clause at all in keeping with the solemnity of the discourse. The words simply mean (as Thl.), ‘ the keeping My word and the keeping yours are intimately joined, and when you find the world or any part of the world do the first, you may infer the other.’ The issue of εἰτ . λ . μ . ἐτήρ . was to be proved by their rejection and killing of the Lord Jesus. Beware of rendering as Kuinoel, “ If they had kept my word, they would keep yours,” which is ungrammatical. The only idiomatic rendering in English is that of the E. V., If they have kept [or rather, If they kept] my word they will keep yours. 21. ἀλλά — nay, so far is this from being so, that it is on this very account, because ye belong to Me, that they will thus treat you. ταῦταπάντα — all that is implied in μισεῖν and διώκειν . τ . π ., ‘ these things, all of them:’ not π . τ ., ‘ all, every one of, these things:’ the former order gives the ταῦτα in the gross,— ‘ all this treatment,’ — the latter in the particular, so that not one is excepted from the category. It was on account of bearing the Name of Christ that the Christians were subjected to persecution in the early ages, and that they are even now hated by those who know Him not: but this is to them comfort and joy, see Acts 5:41: 2 Corinthians 12:10: Galatians 6:17: 1 Peter 4:14. οὐκοἴδασιν , not, ‘ They know Him not as having sent Me’ — but they know not (absolutely) Him who has sent Me. Ignorance of God (not desiring the knowledge of His ways) is the great cause of hostility to Christ and His servants. 22. The sinfulness of this hate. See ch. 9:41 and note. ἐλάλησα , discoursed, generally: not, acquainted them with their sin. The sin spoken of is, not the generally sinful state of the world,— nor the sin of unbelief in Christ, which they of course could not have committed, had He never come: but the sin of hatred to Him and His, which might have been excused otherwise, but now that He had come and discoursed with them, had no excuse, since He had plainly shewn them the proofs of his mission from the Father. Euthym. says well, ἀποστερεῖτοὺςἸουδαίουςπάσηςσυγγνώμηςἐθελοκακοῦντας . 23. See ch. 14:9. Human regards, whether of love or of hatred, towards Him who is the only manifestation of the Father to His creatures, are in fact directed towards the Father Himself: see Psalms 69:9, cited in Romans 15:3. 24. He refers to the testimony of His works among them also, as leaving them again without excuse;— they had had ocular witness of His mission. ἐναὐτοῖς — not to them (as Aug.), but as Acts 2:22, ἐνμέσῳὑμῶν . ἐποίησεν is, not only by external evidence, but also by internal, the right reading. πεποίηκεν (as Lü cke remarks, ii. 643) would imply that the ἄλλοι referred to were contemporaries of our Lord,— or, at all events, that their works still lasted. ἑωράκασιν does not refer to the works (as Lü cke), but to καὶἐμὲκαὶτὸνπατέραμου , see ch. 14:9. 25. ἀλλ ʼ ,— but all this not as an accidental thwarting of My word and work among them, but as a matter predicted in Scripture. ἵνα , with the fullest sense of purpose, as always, and most especially in this formula. Beware of the evasive ecbatic sense. ἐντῷνόμῳαὐτῶν ] See ch. 10:34 and note. To suppose any irony in these words, as De W. does , is manifestly against the whole spirit of our Lord’ s reference to the law. It is ‘ their law,’ — “ quem assidue terunt et jactant,” Bengel,— as condemning them, though their boast and pride. δωρεάν , not, “ to no purpose,” as Bengel (vergeblich), but as E. V., without a cause, answering to πρόφασινοὐκἔχουσιν , ver. 22. The citation is probably from the Messianic Psa_69. 26. This assurance carries on the testimony concerning Christ,— which the world should see and hear, and yet reject and hate Him,— even to the end of time, by means of the Spirit of Truth: so that on the one hand this seeing and hating must not be expected to cease as long as the Spirit bears this witness,— and on the other, He, the Spirit of Truth, will never cease to overcome the hating world by this His testimony. ὁπαράκλ .] See ch. 14:16 and note. ὃνἐγὼπέμψω ] Stier (whose comment on this verse should be consulted) dwells on the accurate division of the clauses here, ὁπαράκλ . ὃνἐγὼπέμψω ,— but τὸπνεῦματ . ἀληθ . ὃπαρὰτ . πατρὸςἐκπορεύεται . The first clause he regards as spoken œ conomically, of the Spirit in His office as Paraclete, sent from the Father by the glorified Son (or, by the Father in the Son’ s name, ch. 14:26), and bringing in the dispensation of the Spirit;— the second ontologically, of the essential nature of the Spirit Himself, that He proceeded forth from the Father. (And if from the Father, from the Son also,— see ch. 16:15, and those passages where the Spirit is said to be His Spirit, Romans 8:9: Galatians 4:6: Philippians 1:19: 1 Peter 1:11: also Revelation 22:1.) Perhaps however it is better to take the whole œ conomically, as Luthardt has done. Then ὃνἐγὼπέμψωπαρὰτ . π . is parallel with ὃπαρὰτοῦπ . ἐκπορεύεται , and the procession from the Father is the sending by the Son. At all events, this passage, as Beza remarks, cannot be alleged either one way or the other in the controversy with the Greek Church on the procession of the Holy Spirit. See this done in the interest of the Greek view, by in loc. ἐκεῖνος , as opposed to the world which hates Christ. On the emphatic use of this pronoun as identifying the chief subject of the sentence, see note, ch. 7:29. 27. The disciples are not, as some have supposed, here mentioned as witnesses separate from and working with the Holy Spirit. The witness is one and the same— the Spirit will witness in and by them; the ὃτανἔλθῃὁπαρ . belongs to the whole: see Luke 24:48, Luke 24:49, where this is strongly expressed. This verse alludes to the historical witness which the Holy Ghost in the ministers and eye-witnesses of the word, Luke 1:2, should enable them to give,— which forms the human side (καὶὑμ . δέ , “ quin et vos,” Erasm.) of this great testimony of the Spirit of truth, and of which our inspired Gospels are the summary: the divine side being, His own indwelling testimony in the life and heart of every believer in all time. But both the one and the other are given by the self-same Spirit;— neither of them inconsistent with, or superseding the other. Beware of taking μαρτυρεῖτε imperative as Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 2, p. 15. It would thus be very abrupt and unnatural. The καὶ … δέ , and the reason, ὅτικ .τ .λ ., seem decisive against it. ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς , as in reff., and in the sense of Act 1:21:— ‘ from the beginning of the Lord’ s ministry.’ The present tenses set forth the connexion between the being (continuing to be) witnesses, and the being (having been throughout) companions of the Lord in His ministry. Cf. ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆςὁδιάβολοςἀμαρτάνει , 1 John 3:8. Chap. 16:1-33. The promise of the Comforter expanded in its fulness. And herein, vv. 1-15, the conditions of His coming and His office. 1. ταῦτα , scil. ch. 15:18-27,— not only the warning of the hatred of the world, but the promise of the testifying Spirit (Stier). 2. On ἀποσυν . see reff. ἀλλ ʼ , yea, and,— see reff. It introduces a yet more grievous and decisive proof of their nature. ἵνα ] “ That which shall happen in the ὥρα , is regarded as the object of its coming.” Meyer. προσφέρειν , the technical word for offering a sacrifice— see reff. λατρείαν ] “ Quis-quis effundit sanguinem impii, idem facit ac si sacrificium offerat.” Jalkut Schimeoni, cited by De Wette, &c., see 1 Corinthians 4:13. But the sense of ‘ sacrificium’ must not be too much pressed, as Stier remarks, to mean in every case an expiatory offering: see reff. 3. See Luke 23:34: ch. 15:21: Acts 3:17: and 1 Timothy 1:13. 4. ἀλλὰ here indicates no contrast, but only breaking off the mournful details, and passing back to the subject of ver. 1. Cf. Æ sch. Agam. 507-9. Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 35. If we are to seek any contrast, it will be between the οὐκἔγνωσαν of the world, and the μνημονεύητε of the Church. The one know not what they are doing: the other know well what they are suffering. ἡὥρααὐτῶν , the time of their happening ἐγώ before εἶπον is emphatic, ‘ I myself:’ — that it was I myself who told you. A difficulty has been found in the latter part of the verse, because our Lord had repeatedly announced to them future persecutions, and that at least as plainly as here, Matthew 5:10; 10:16, 21-28 . freq. And hence, De Wette, Meyer, and Lü cke, and even Olsh., find ground for supposing that the chronological order of the discourses has not been followed in the Synoptic Gospels. But there is in reality no inconsistency, and therefore no need for such a supposition. This declaration, as here meant, was not made before, because He was with them. Then clearly it is now made, in reference to His immediate departure. And if so, to what will ταῦτα most naturally refer? To that full and complete account of the world’ s motives, and their own office, and their comfort under it, which He has been giving them. This He had never before done so plainly, though occasional mention has been made even of the help of the Spirit under such trials, see Matthew 10:19, Matthew 10:20. μεθ ʼ ὑμ . ἤμ .] While the Lord was with them (cf. Matthew 9:15), the malice of the world was mainly directed against Him,— and they were overlooked: see ch. 18:8. In ἤμην we have the proleptical character of the discourse again manifest. 5. This is occasioned by the foregoing, but in fact begins the new subject, the condition of the Comforter’ s coming. καὶοὐδ .] They had (see ch. 13:36; 14:5) asked this verbally before: our Lord therefore cites the question here in some other and deeper sense than they had used it there. I believe the meaning to be: ‘ None of you enquires into the nature (ποῦ being emphatic) of My departure, so as to appear anxious to know what advantages are to be derived from it; but (ver. 6) you are all given up to grief on account of what I have said, “ expavescitis, neque reputatis quo discedam aut in quem finem.” Calvin. 6. ἡλύπηπεπλ . ὑμ . τ . κ .] ‘ Your grief has filled, entirely occupied, your heart (not τὰςκ ., but singular, as common to all, see Romans 1:21), to the exclusion of any regard of my object in leaving you.’ “ These are the same disciples who afterwards when their risen Lord had ascended to heaven,— without any pang at parting with Him, returned with great joy to Jerusalem, Luke 24:52” (Stier). “ Subest huic blandæ increpationi tacita consolatio. Dum enim improbat, quod quæ stionem, quo vaderet, negligant, sibi id optime perspectum esse docet. Dum negligentiæ incusat, ad excusationem tamen affert, quod ea ex tam vehementi affectu tristitiæ oriunda sit.” Lampe. 7. ἀλλά refers to the last clause (notwithstanding, or nevertheless, as E. V.): ἐγώ , to οὐδεὶςἐξὑμ . κ .τ .λ . I Myself tell you the real state of the case. συμφέρειὑμ . implies that the dispensation of the Spirit is a more blessed manifestation of God than was even the bodily presence of the risen Saviour. Every rendering of this verse ought to keep the distinction between ἀπέλθω and πορευθῶ , which is not sufficiently done in E. V. by ‘ go away’ and ‘ depart.’ Depart and go would be better: the first expressing merely the leaving them, the second, the going up to the Father. The ἐγώ before ἀπέλθω is again emphatic: ‘ that I, for my part, should leave you.’ This οὐκἐλεύσεται … is a convincing proof, if one more were needed, that the gift of the Spirit at and since the day of Pentecost, was and is something totally distinct from any thing before that time: a new and loftier dispensation. 8-11. We have here, in a few deep and wonderful words, the work of the Spirit on the world set forth. This work He shall begin ἐλθών , scil. πρὸςὑμᾶς : not, however, merely ‘ by your means,’ but personally: so that it is not the work and witness of the Apostles which is spoken of, except in so far as they are servants of the Holy Spirit, but His own immediate personal working. ἐλέγξει ] It is difficult to give in one word the deep meaning: ‘ convince’ approaches perhaps the nearest to it, but does not express the double sense of ἐλέγχειν , which is manifestly here intended— of a convincing unto salvation, and a convicting unto condemnation:— ‘ reprove’ is far too weak, conveying merely the idea of an objective rebuke, whereas ἐλέγξει reaches into the heart, and works subjectively in both the above-mentioned ways. See the whole question amply discussed in Archdeacon Hare’ s Mission of the Comforter, vol. ii. note K. Lü cke’ s comment is valuable: “ The testimony of the Holy Ghost in behalf of Christ as opposed to the unbelieving world (ch. 15:26) is essentially a refutation, ἔλεγχος , a demonstration of its wrong and error.” All the apostolic preaching, as addressed to the world, takes necessarily this polemical form (1 Timothy 5:20: 2 Timothy 4:2; 2 Timothy 3:16: Titus 1:9, Titus 1:13; Titus 2:15). And the more difficult was the disciples’ conflict against the power of this world with only the Word for their weapon, the more comfort was it for them, that the power of God the Spirit working by this ἔλεγχος was their help. In Matthew 10:19, Matthew 10:20: Luke 12:11, Luke 12:12, the apologetic side of their conflict, which was in close connexion with the polemical, is brought into view. In ἐλέγχειν is always implied the refutation, the overcoming of an error, a wrong,— by the truth and the right. And when, by means of the ἔλεγχος , the truth detects the error, and the right the wrong, so that a man becomes conscious of them,— then arises the feeling of guilt, which is ever painful. Thus every ἔλεγχος is a chastening, a punishment. And hence this office has been called the Strafamt (punitive office) of the Spirit. The effect of the ἔλεγχος of the Divine Spirit in the world may be to harden: but its aim is the deliverance of the world. ὁκόσμος , in John, includes those who are not yet delivered (from the power of Satan to God), who may be yet delivered,— not the condemned. If the ἔλεγχος of the world is a moral process, its result may just as well be conversion, as non-conversion. Only thus did the ἔλεγχος of the Spirit answer the end of Christ’ s coming;— only thus could it be a cheering support to the Apostles. Certainly, the κρίσις with which the ἔλεγχος closes is condemnation, not however of the world, but of the Prince of the world” (ii. 649 f.). De Wette denies the salutary side of this ἐλέγχειν — but he is certainly wrong: see below. These three words, ἁμαρτία , δικαιοσύνη , κρίσις , comprehend the three great steps of advance in spiritual truth among men. Of itself the world does not know what Sin is, what Righteousness is, what Judgment is. Nor can either of these be revealed to any man except by the Spirit of God working within him. Each man’ s conscience has some glimmering of light on each of these; some consciousness of guilt, some sense of right, some power of judgment of what is transitory and worthless: but all these are unreal and unpractical, till the ἔλεγχος of the Spirit has wrought in him (see Stier, v. 306, edn. 2). 9. And the great opening of Sin to the world is to shew them that its root and essence is, unbelief in Christ as the Son of God. Unbelief:— for, mankind being alien from God by nature, the first step towards their recovery must be to lay hold on that only safety which He has provided for them; and that laying hold is faith, and the not doing it, when revealed and placed before them, is sin. Beforetime, it was also unbelief;— “ The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God:” — but now,— for we can only believe as God has revealed Himself,— it is unbelief in Christ the Son of God,— the οὐθέλετεἔρχεσθαιπρόςμε : see this pointedly asserted 1 John 5:10-12. Remember, this unbelief is not a mere want of historical faith,— but unbelief in its very root,— the want of a personal and living recognition of Jesus as the Lord (1 Corinthians 12:3), which, wherever the Spirit has “ opened His commission” by the planting of the visible Church, is the condemning sin of the world. Of this He shall convince those who are brought out of the world, and ultimately convict those who remain in it and die in their sins (see Hare, Mission of the Comforter, vol. ii. note Q). 10. δικαιοσ . cannot be only the righteousness of Christ, the mere conviction of which would only bring condemnation to that world which rejected and crucified Him: but, as Stier remarks rightly (v. 312, edn. 2), τοῦκόσμου must be supplied after each of the three ἁμαρτία , δικαιοσύνη , κρίσις :— the conviction being of a sin that is theirs, a righteousness that is (or, in the case of condemnation, might have been) theirs, a judgment which is theirs (see below). Then, what is the world’ s righteousness? Not their own, but that of the accepted Man Christ Jesus standing at the right hand of God (seen by us no more, but by that very withdrawal testified to be the Son of God, the Righteous One), manifested in the hearts of men by the Spirit to be their only righteousness;— and thereby that righteousness, which they had of their own before, is demonstrated to be worthless and as filthy rags. It is the ὑπάγεινπρὸςτὸνπατέρα by which this righteousness is assured to us, and by the effect of which, the Spirit, the conviction respecting it is wrought in our hearts (see Hare, as above, note T). The condemnatory side of this part of the ἔλεγχος is,— that remorse, wherewith they whose day of grace is past shall look on the perfect righteousness which might have been theirs, and on the miserable substitute with which they contented themselves. 11. As δικαιοσύνη was the world’ s righteousness, and the ἔλεγχος of it was the manifesting to them how worthless it (their δικαιοσύνη after its old conception) was of their own by nature, but how perfect and complete it (the same as now newly and more worthily apprehended) is in and by Christ,— so now κρίσις is the world’ s judgment:— on the one side, their judgment or estimate, or discrimination of things,— on the other side, God’ s judgment, to which it is opposed. This their judgment by nature they form in subjection to the prince of this world, the Devil, of whose power they are not conscious, and whose existence they even deny: but the Spirit of God ἐλέγξει , shall convict this judgment of wrong;— shall shew them how erroneous and destructive it is, and what a bondage they have been under;— shall detect to them the Prince of this world reigning in the children of disobedience, and give them a better judgment, by which they shall “ not be ignorant of his devices” (2 Corinthians 2:11). But this better judgment itself is that very truth of God manifested in the Lord Jesus, by which (ch. 12:31) the Prince of this world is cast out;— by which the follower of Christ is enabled to say, “ Get thee behind me, Satan;” by which the unbelieving world, and its Prince, are finally condemned in the judgment hereafter (see Hare, as above, note V). I have preferred giving pointedly what I believe to be the sense of this most important passage, to stringing together a multitude of opinions on it: seeing that of even the best Commentators no two bring out exactly the same shade of meaning, and thus classification is next to impossible. I sincerely recommend the student to read the notes in Archdeacon Hare’ s work, where he will find the whole literature of the subject, with the exception of Stier’ s second edition, and Luthardt’ s commentary, which have been published since. It will be seen that in my view the subjective and objective bearing of the three words are both to be kept in sight, and that the great convictive work of the Spirit is to bring man out of himself into Christ, Who (in His objective manifestation) must be made unto him (subjectively), (1) ἀπολύτρωσις , (2) δικαιοσύνη , (3) σοφία (the fourth, ἁγιασμός , not being here treated of, as being another part of the Spirit’ s work, and on those who are no longer the κόσμος , see ch. 17:16, 17); and to condemn those who remain in the world finally, in all these points, as having rejected Christ. And this convictive work of the Spirit is a complex and progressive work; including the ministry of the Apostles, and every step taken towards divine truth in the history of the Church, as well as the conversion of individuals, and condemnation of the unbelieving. 12. The πολλά are the things belonging to πᾶσαἡἀλήθεια in the next verse, which were gradually unfolded after the Ascension, by the Spirit. 13. ἐκεῖνος , emphatical, as in ver. 8: see note, ch. 7:29. τὴνἀλήθ . πᾶσαν ] all the truth, viz. on those points alluded to in ver. 12. Lü cke observes that the . reading connects πᾶσαν more with ὁδηγήσει , the other with ἀλήθ . The Lord had ever told them the truth, and nothing but the truth, in spiritual things,— but not yet the whole truth, because they could not bear it. This the Spirit should lead them into, open the way to it, and unfold it by degrees. No promise of universal knowledge, nor of infallibility, is hereby conveyed; but 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 (Galatians 4:6), making known to us the whole truth of God. This was in an especial manner fulfilled to them, as set to be the founders and teachers of the Churches. οὐγὰρλαλ . ἀφ ʼ ἑαυτ .] The Spirit does not, any more than the Son, work or speak of Himself: both are sent, the one from the Father, the other from the Father and Son: the one to testify ὅσαἀκούσει of the Father, the other of the Father and the Son. ὅσαἀκ ., from God, the Father and the Son. τὰἐρχ . ἀναγ . ὑμ .] As the direct fulfilment to the Apostles of the leading into the whole truth was the unfolding before them those truths which they have delivered down to us in their Epistles,— so, though scattered traces of the fulfilment of this part of the promise are found in the Acts and those Epistles, its complete fulfilment was the giving of the Apocalypse, in which τὰἐρχόμενα are distinctly the subject of the Spirit’ s revelation, and with which His direct testimony closes: see Revelation 1:1; Revelation 22:6, Revelation 22:20. On the whole of this verse, see Ephesians 4:7-16. 14. Notice the emphatic ἐμέ , prefixed to the verb. This is in connexion with ver. 12— and sets forth that the Spirit guiding into truth is in fact the Son declaring the truth, for He shall shew forth the glory of Christ, by revealing the matters of Christ,— the riches of the Father’ s love in Him (ver. 15). “ Œ conomia trium testium: patrem glorificat filius, filium Spiritus sanctus.” Bengel. This verse is decisive against all additions and pretended revelations subsequent to and besides Christ; it being the work of the Spirit to testify to and declare the things of Christ; not any thing new and beyond Him. And this declaration is coincident with inward advance in the likeness and image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:17, 2 Corinthians 3:18), not with a mere external development. 15. Here we have given us a glimpse into the essential relations of the Blessed Trinity. The Father hath given the Son to have life and all things in Himself (Colossians 1:19; Colossians 2:2, Colossians 2:3), the relation being, that the Son glorifies not Himself but the Father, by revealing the Father, whom He alone knows (Matthew 11:27). And this Revelation, the Revelation of the Father by Christ— is carried on by the blessed Spirit in the hearts of the disciples of Christ; Who takes (λαμβάνει , indefinite, of the office of the Spirit) of the things of Christ, and declares, proclaims, to them. διὰτοῦτο ] For this cause I (rightly) said.… i.e. ‘ this was the ground of My asserting:’ — not the reason why it was said, but the justification of it when said. This verse contains the plainest proof by inference of the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 16-24. The Lord speaks of His withdrawal, and its immediate mournful, but ultimate (and those soon to begin) joyful consequences for His disciples. The connexion is: “ Very soon will the Spirit, the Comforter, come to you: for I go to the Father, without any real cessation of the communion between you and Me.” Lü cke. 16. The mode of expression is (purposely) enigmatical;— the θεωρεῖτε and ὄψεσθε not being co-ordinate;— the first referring merely to physical, the second also to spiritual sight. So before, ch. 14:19, where see note. The ὄψεσθε began to be fulfilled at the Resurrection;— then received its main fulfilment at the day of Pentecost;— and shall have its final completion at the great return of the Lord hereafter. Remember again, that in all these prophecies we have a perspective of continually unfolding fulfilments presented to us: see note on ch. 14:3. 17, 18. The disciples are perplexed by this μικρόν , as connected with what our Lord had before asserted ver. 10, ὑπάγωπρὸςτ . πατέρα . That seemed to them a long and hopeless withdrawal: how was it then to be reconciled with what he now said of a short absence? What was this μικρόν This connexion not being observed has led to the insertion of ὅτιἐγὼὑπάγωπρ . τ . πατ . in ver. 16. 19. The real difficulty being in μικρόν , our Lord applies himself only to this, not noticing the other part of the question: which confirms the view of the connexion taken above. 20. κλαύσ . κ . θρην . are to be literally taken: see Luke 23:27. They would mourn for Him as dead: see also ch. 20:11. ὑμεῖς , emphatic, as opposed to ὁκόσμος . And the joy of the world found its first exponent in the scoffs of the passers-by at the crucifixion. λυπηθ .] This goes deeper than the weeping and wailing before: and plainly shews that the whole does not only refer to the grief while the Lord was in the tomb, but to the grief continually manifesting itself in the course and conflict of the Christian, which is turned into joy by the advancing work of the Spirit of Christ:— and, in the completion of the sense, to the grief and widowhood of the Church during her present state, which will be turned into joy at the coming of her Lord. εἰςχαρ . γεν ., not merely changed for joy, but changed into so as itself to become,— so that the very matter of grief shall become matter of joy; as Christ’ s Cross of shame has become the glory of the Christian, Galatians 6:14. 21. The ‘ tertium comparationis’ is ἡλύπηεἰςχαρὰνγενήσεται : but the comparison itself goes far beyond this mere similitude. ἡγυνή is not merely generic, but allusive to the frequent use and notoriety of the comparison. We often have it in the O.T.,— see Isaiah 21:3; Isaiah 26:17, Isaiah 26:18; Isaiah 37:3; Isaiah 66:7, Isaiah 66:8: Hosea 13:13, Hosea 13:14: Micah 4:9, Micah 4:10. τίκτῃ ] is bringing forth, viz. παιδίον , expressed in τὸπ . below. ἡὥρααὐτ .] her (appointed) time. τὸπαιδ . not necessarily masculine , but indefinite. The deeper reference of the comparison has been well described by Olshausen: “ Here arises the question, how are we to understand this similitude? We might perhaps think that the suffering Manhood of Christ was the woman in her pangs, and the same Christ glorified in the Resurrection, the Man born; but the Redeemer (ver. 22) applies the pangs to the disciples: how then will the ἄνθρωπος who is born apply to them?” Then, after condemning the shallow and unsatisfactory method of avoiding deep research by asserting that the details of parables are not to be interpreted, he proceeds: “ Hence the proper import of the figure seems to be, that the Death of Jesus Christ was as it were an anguish of birth belonging to all Humanity (ein schmerzvoller Geburtsact der ganzen Menschheit) in which the perfect Man was born into the world; and in this very birth of the new man lies the spring of eternal joy, never to be lost, for all, inasmuch as through Him and His power the renovation of the whole is rendered possible” (ii. 379). And indeed the same is true of every Christian who is planted in the likeness of Christ. His passing from sorrow to joy— till “ Christ be formed in him,” is this birth of pain. And the whole Church, the Spouse of Christ,— nay, even the whole Creation, συνωδίνει , till the number of the elect be accomplished, and the eternal joy brought in. And thus the meaning which Luthardt insists on as against the above remarks of Olshausen, viz. the new birth of the Church, is in inner truth the same as his. 22. ὄψομαι — in the same manifold meaning as before noticed— will see you— at My Resurrection— by My Spirit— at My second Advent. 23. ἐνἐκείνῃτῇἡμ ., in its full meaning, cannot import the forty days: for, Acts 1:6, they did then ask the Lord questions (the sense of ἐρωτᾶν , see vv. 19, 30, not ver. 26, where the construction is different);— nor this present dispensation of the Spirit, during which we have only the first-fruits, but not the full understanding so as not to need to ask any thing: (for is not prayer itself an asking?)— but that great completion of the Christian’ s hope, when he shall be with his Lord, when all doubt shall be resolved, and prayer shall be turned into praise. The Resurrection-visiting and the Pentecost-visiting of them, were but foretastes of this. Stier well remarks, “ The connexion of the latter part of this verse is,— The way to οὐδὲνἐρωτᾶν any more, is to ask and to pray the more diligently, till that day comes.” It has been supposed wrongly that ἐμέ and τὸνπατέρα are in opposition in this verse, and thence gathered τοίνυνπροσεύχεσθαιμόνῳτῷθεῷτῷτῶνὅλωνπατρί · ἀλλὰμὴχωρὶςτοῦἀρχιερέως , κ .τ .λ .) that it is not lawful to address prayer to Christ. But such an opposition is contrary to the whole spirit of these discourses,— and asking the Father in Christ’ s name, is in fact asking Him. In the latter clause, notice the right reading: He shall give it you in my name, He being, as Luthardt expresses it, the element, the region, of all communication between God and the Church. Cf. Romans 1:8, where thanks are offered διὰἸησοῦχριστοῦ . 24. It was impossible, up to the time of the glorification of Jesus (ἕωςἄρτι , proleptical, as before), to pray to the Father in His Name. It is a fulness of joy peculiar to the dispensation of the Spirit, to be able so to do, Ephesians 2:18. αἰτεῖτε ] See Matthew 7:7, and mark the difference between the command then and now,— that ἐντῷὀν . μου is added. 25-33. Their present real weakness and imperfection, though fancied strength: their future high blessedness and share in His triumph, though in tribulation in the world. 25. παροιμία , properly, a proverb:— but implying generally in Scriptural and oriental usage something dark and enigmatical: see especially Sir. 6:35; 8:8; 39:3; 47:17: “ in dictis tectioribus,” Bengel. This is true of the whole discourse— and of the discourses of the Lord in general, as they must then have seemed to them, before the Holy Spirit furnished the key to their meaning. ἔρχεταιὥρα , viz. the same as that indicated in vv. 16 and 23;— but here again, not one ὥρα only exclusive of all others, but to be understood of the several steps of spiritual knowledge. Olshausen finely remarks, that all human language is a παροιμία , only able to hint at, not to express fully, the things of God; and that the Lord contrasts the use of this weak and insufficient medium, with the inward teaching of the Holy Spirit. This inward teaching, because it is a real imparting of the divine Nature and Life, brings with it not only prayer in the name of Jesus, but a free access to the Father Himself. This παῤῥησίᾳλαλεῖν however, he continues, is spoken of here by the Lord in its ideal perfection (as it will hereafter be): and is only approximated to on earth; for, as long as the old man yet lives in us, we require still the Lord’ s intercessory prayer (ch. 17:15), daily washing from the pollution of the world; by which Intercession alone the faithful man notwithstanding his imperfection can enjoy in peace the grace of God vouchsafed to him. 26. “ The more knowledge, the more prayer in the name of Jesus,” Lü cke. “ Cognitio parit orationem,” Bengel. The approaching the Father through Him shall be a characteristic of their higher state under the dispensation of the Spirit. οὐλέγωὑμ .] This has been variously understood. Grotius’ s rendering, “ præ tereo hoc quasi minus eo quod jam inferam,” comes I believe the nearest to the truth, though it does not express the whole meaning. The Lord is now describing the fulness of their state of communion with Himself and the Father by the Spirit. He is setting in the strongest light their reconciliation and access to the Father. He therefore says, Ye shall ask the Father in My name: and I do not now say to you,— I do not now state it in this form,— that I will ask the Father for you— as if there were no relation of love and mercy between the Father and yourselves:— (27) for the Father Himself (αὐτός , i.e. αὐτοκέλευτος (Nonnus)— ‘ proprio motu’ ) loveth you;— why? Because ye love and believe on Me. The whole mind of the Father towards mankind is Love: both in Redemption itself (ch. 3:16),— and then in an especial manner by drawing those who come to Christ (6:44),— and again by this fuller manifestation of His love to those who believe on and love Christ. The aim of this saying is to shew them that His intercession (which is still going on under the dispensation of the Spirit, 1 John 2:1) does not imply their exclusion from access to the Father, but rather ensures that access, by the especial love which the Father bears to them who believe in and love His Son: Christ being still the efficient cause of the Father’ s love to them, and the channel of that Love. No stress must be laid (Lü cke) on πεφιλήκατε here coming before πεπιστεύκατε , as to Faith coming after Love: probably πεφιλ . is placed first as corresponding to φιλεῖ just before:— and it might be said with just as much reason that καὶπεπιστεύκατε … contains the ground of the πεφιλ , as the converse. 28. “ Recapitulationem maximam habet hic versus,” Bengel. ‘ And your belief is sound: for I did indeed come forth’ … see ch. 13:3. “ Exiit a Patre, quia de Patre est; in mundum venit, quia mundo suum corpus ostendit quod de virgine assumpsit; reliquit mundum corporali discessione, perrexit ad Patrem hominis adscensione, nec mundum deseruit præ sentiæ gubernatione.” Aug. Tract. cii. 6. 29, 30] The stress is on νῦν : q. d. why announce that as future, which Thou art doing now? The hour was not yet come for the ἐνπαῤῥησίᾳλαλεῖν : so that we must understand the disciples’ remark to be made in weakness, however true their persuasion, and heartfelt their confession. “ Usque adeo non intelligunt, ut nec saltem se non intelligere intelligant. Parvuli enim erant.” Aug. Tract. ciii. 1. “ Dolent, se a Magistro pro imperitis haberi, qui conciones ejus non intelligant, alioque doctore, promisso Spiritu, indigeant. Quare eo usque progrediuntur, ut Christo contradicant, et clarissima ejus verba invertant, eumque parœ miastice locutum esse negent.” Lampe, vol. iii. 350. But by νῦν they probably only mean, in ver. 26-28. 30. ‘ Thou hast spoken so clearly of our feeling towards Thee, and of Thyself, that we have no occasion to ask Thee any thing;— and this was what Thou didst announce would be;— we know therefore, by its being so, that Thou knowest the secrets of our hearts (πάντα by inference),— and hence believe that Thou camest forth from God:’ the whole being a misunderstanding of what had gone before, vv. 23, 25. 31. Our Lord does not clear up their misunderstanding, but leaves that for the coming day of the Spirit. He only assures them that their belief, though sincere and loving, was not so deeply grounded in knowledge of Him and His appointed course as they imagined. ἄρτιπιστ . is not a question: this very belief was by our Lord recognized and commended, see ch. 17:8, also Matthew 16:17, Matthew 16:18. And as Stier remarks (v. 369, edn. 2), “ it was the aim and purpose of the whole prophetic office of Jesus, to prepare some first disciples (not the Apostles alone) for the reception of the Spirit of Truth and the fruits of His Death, by grounding in them firm belief in His Person.” He therefore recognizes their faith; but shews them how weak it as yet was. 32. See Matthew 26:31, to which same prophecy the reference here is. εἰςτὰἴδ ., “ quæ antea propter Me reliquistis.” Bengel: see Luke 18:28. καὶοὐκεἰμὶμ .] and (not but: it is a pathetic use of the copulative, and a favourite one with St. John: cf., besides ref., ch. 3:11, 32; 6:70; 7:19; 8:38, 49; 10:25; 13:33; 14:30; 17:11, 14, 25) I am not alone: the Father can never leave the Son, even in the darkest hour of His human suffering:— the apparent desertion implied in the cry “ Why hast Thou forsaken me?” being perfectly consistent with this, see note, Matthew 27:46. 33. On the first clause, especially ἐνἐμοί , see ch. 15:7. This presupposes the return from the scattering in ver. 32,— the branches again gathered in the vine. ἔχετε , of their normal state in the world. This θλῖψις is not only persecution from the world, but trouble, inward distress, while we are in the world,— ch. 17:11;— a comforting sign that we are not of the world (see Stier, v. 373, edn. 2). And this latter idea is implied between the two clauses: ‘ Be of good cheer; for ye belong not to the world, but to Me, who have (proleptically again, by that which is now at hand) overcome the world, so that it shall have no power over you, externally by persecution, or internally by temptations or discouragements.’ See 1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:5. Chap. 17:1-26. His love in the glorification of the Son of God. The parting prayer of the Lord Jesus: and herein, for Himself (1-5): for His disciples (6-19): for all believers, that they may be one (20, 21),— that they may be glorified in the completion of that unity (22-24),— for their abiding in the union of love, the perfection of divine knowledge (25, 26). “ Hoc caput in tota scriptura est verbis facillimum, sensibus profundissimum.” Bengel. “ Poterat Dominus noster unigenitus et coæ ternus Patri in forma servi et ex forma servi, si hoc opus esset, orare silentio; sed ita se Patri exhibere voluit precatorem, ut meminisset, nostrum se esse doctorem. Proinde eam, quam fecit, orationem pronobis, notam fecit et nobis: quoniam tanti Magistri non solum apud ipsos sermocinatio,, sed etiam ipsius pro ipsis ad Patrem oratio discipulorum est edificatio. Et si illorum qui hæ c dicta erant audituri, profecto et nostra, qui fueramus conscriptalecturi.” Tr. civ. 2. 1. ταῦτα , the foregoing discourse. St. John very seldom depicts the gestures or looks of our Lord, as here. But this was an occasion of which the impression was indelible, and the upward look could not be passed over. εἰςτὸνοὐρ .] Nothing hereby is determined as to the locality. The guest-chamber no doubt was the place of this prayer. The eyes may be lifted to heaven in as well as out of doors; heaven is not the sky, but that upper region, above our own being and thoughts, where we all agree in believing God to be especially present; and which we indicate when we direct our eyes or our hands upward. The Lord, being in all such things like as we are, lifted up His eyes to heaven when addressing the Father . καὶεἶπεν ] It is impossible to regard the following prayer otherwise than as the very words of our Lord Himself,— faithfully rendered by the beloved Apostle in the power of the Holy Spirit. The view which has led so many of the best German Commentators (even Olshausen) to see in parts of it the words of the Evangelist, and not of our Lord, is, it seems to me, inconsistent with any earnest reception of the Gospels as truthful. If such a promise as ch. 14:26 was made, and fulfilled, then these must be the words of the Lord Himself;— and the Greek form of them only ) can be regarded as bearing evidence of the style and manner of John. πάτερ , not, Our Father,— which He never could say,— nor, My Father,— which would be too great a separation between Himself and His for such a prayer (see Mat_26:(39), 42, where He prays for Himself only)— but simply Father; that Great Name in which all the mystery of Redemption is summed up. “ Sic patrem absolute appellat in hac oratione dulci et prolixa quater, et cum epitheto bis, in universum nonnisi sexies, idque fere ineunte nova sermonis parte, vv. 1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25. Talis simplicitas appellationis ante omnes decuit filium Dei.” Bengel. ἐλήλ . ἡὥρα ] See ch. 12:23, 28; 13:31, 32. The Glorification is— the exaltation by Death and Resurrection: He prays in the Manhood and for the exaltation of the Manhood, but in virtue of His Godhead, ver. 5. τὸνυἱόν ] He prays first objectively, to set the great matter forth in all its majesty; then subjectively, δόξασόνμεσύ , ver. 5, putting Himself into the place of τὸνυἱόν here. ἵνα … ] “ These words are a proof that the Son is equal to the Father as touching His Godhead. What creature could stand before his Creator and say, ‘ Glorify Thou me, that I may glorify Thee?’  ” (Stier.) This glorifying of the Father by the Son is, the whole great result of the glorification of the Son by the Father,— the manifestation of God to and in men by the Son through the Spirit. 2. “ The causal connexion expressed by καθώς is this, that the glorification, the end, must correspond to the beginning, to the sending, the preparation, and office of the Son.” (Lü cke.) We must also bear in mind that the ‘ giving of power’ in this verse is the ground, as well as the type, of the glorification, see Romans 1:28: 1 Corinthians 1:6: so Stier (v. 383, edn. 2). πᾶσασάρξ is not only ‘ all mankind,’ but (see Genesis 7:15, Genesis 7:16, Genesis 7:21) all that has life, all that is subject to death, all that is cursed on account of sin. But of this all, mankind is the head and crown, and in the full blessings of the Lordship of Christ mankind only can participate. πᾶσασάρξ is given by the Father from before the foundation of the world to Christ; the whole creation is His to rule, His to judge, by virtue of His being, in the root of that human nature, to which sovereignty over the world was given, the second and righteous Adam. But in this wide gift, there is a more special gift,— ὃδέδωκαςαὐτῷ in the stricter sense,— the chosen, they who believe on Him. And to them, and them only, He imparts the further and ineffable gift consequent on union with Him their God in the Spirit,— viz. eternal life (compare ch. 5:26, 27; also 6:37). 3. See a similar definition of a term just used, in ch. 3:19. δέ , as there, is transitional; bringing out, in fact, the contrast between the incidental mention of the word, and its more solemn definition. ἐστιν — is; not is the way to. The knowledge spoken of is no mere head or heart knowledge,— the mere information of the mind, or excitation of the feelings,— but that living reality of knowledge and personal realization,— that oneness in will with God, and partaking of His nature, which is itself life eternal:— the knowledge, love, enjoyment, of Him who is infinite, being themselves infinite. ἡὕπαρξιςτῆςζωῆςἐκτῆςτοῦθεοῦπεριγίνεταιμετοχῆς · μετοχὴδὲθεοῦἐστιτὸγινώσκεινθεὸνκαὶἀπολαύειντῆςχρηστότητοςαὐτοῦ . adv. Hæ r. iv. 20. 5, p. 254. The accusatives after γινώσκ . are purely accusatives of the person, and the emphasis is on γινώσκ . From not seeing this, various mistakes have arisen— e.g. the making τὸνμόν . ἀλ . θεόν the predicate, ‘ Thee to be the only true God,’ and similarly with χριστόν (which would require τὸνχρ .) or with ὃνἀπέστειλας ,— ‘ Jesus, whom Thou hast sent, to be (the) Christ,’ — or ‘ Jesus Christ to be Him whom Thou hast sent.’ It is rightly rendered in E. V. The Latin Fathers , anxious to avoid the inference unwarrantably drawn by some from this verse against the Godhead of Christ, construed: ἵναγιν . σεκ . Ἰ . χ . ὃνἀπ ., τὸνμόνονἀλ . θεόν ,— which is of course inadmissible. Others (Chrys., Euth.), construing rightly, yet regarded Jesus Christ as included in the words μόν . ἀληθ . θεόν . But all such violences to the text are unnecessary. For, first, the very juxtaposition of Jesus Christ here with the Father, and the knowledge of both being defined to be eternal life, is a proof by implication of the Godhead of the former. The knowledge of God and a creature could not be eternal life, and the juxtaposition of the two would be inconceivable. Secondly, the ὃνἀπέστειλας most distinctly expresses the ἐξελθεῖν from God, ver. 8— implies the ἡμεῖςἕν of ver. 22, and cannot, in connexion with what follows, possibly be understood in a Socinian, or an Arian sense. I do not scruple to use and preach on the verse as a plain proof of the co-equality of the Lord Jesus in the Godhead. A difficulty has been found in the use of the name Jesus Christ by the Lord Himself:— and inferences have been hence made that we have John’ s own language here:— but surely without any ground. He who said σουτὸνυἱόν , ver. 1, might well here, before the ἐγώ of ver. 4, use that prophetic Name [Ἰησοῦς ] which had been divinely given Him as the Saviour of men, and its weighty adjunct χριστός (= υἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ , 1 John 5:1, 1 John 5:5), in which Names are all the hidden treasures of that knowledge of which He here speaks. And as to the later use of the two names together having led to their insertion here by the Apostle (gegen das geschichtliche Decorum, De Wette; similarly Lü cke, and even Olshausen),— what if the converse were the case, and this solemn use of them by our Lord had given occasion to their subsequent use by the Church? This is to me much more probable than the other. 4. The past tenses are proleptical. In the rendering of this whole chapter they should be kept indefinite, not made into perfects as in E. V., which destroys this proleptical character. I glorified Thee … I finished … What view of the aorist has led to Bp. Wordsworth’ s explanation here,— “ the aorist is used, not the perfect, masmuch as the work of glorification was still going on, and not to be completed before His Passion, when He would say τετέλεσται ,” — I am quite unable to imagine. That the aorist implies present continuance, is at least a startling doctrine. The force of it here surely is, that our Lord stands by anticipation at the end of His accomplished course, and looks back on it all as past, as historically gathered up in one act: which is the very sense and propriety of the aorist. τὸἔργον is not only the ministerial life of our Lord, but the whole Life, with all its appointed manifestations of humility and purity,— the perfect righteousness which by that life He has planted in our nature,— and His prophetic and declarative office, terminated by His Passion and Death. 5. δόξασόνμε ] Notice the correlation, which Meyer has pointed out, between ἐγώσε before and μεσύ now. The same Person who had with the Father glory before the world, also glorified the Father in the world, and prays to be again received into that glory. A decisive proof of the unity of the Person of Christ, in His three estates of eternal præ -existence in glory, humiliation in the flesh, and glorification in the Resurrection Body. This direct testimony to the eternal præ -existence of the Son of God has been evaded by the Socinian and also the Arminian interpreters, by rendering εἶχον ,— “ habebam destinatione tua,” Grot., . On the identity of the δόξα in ver. 22 with this δόξα , see note there. εἶχον ] “ Hic non dicit accepi. Semper habebat: nunquam cœ pit habere.” Bengel. πρὸτοῦτ . κ . εἶν ., before the καταβολὴκόσμου , ver. 24;— ‘ before all creation.’ “ Antequam fieret mundus, gloriam illam habebat Filius; sed cum fieret mundus, gloria illa se cœ pit (?) exserere.” Bengel. παρὰσοί = πρὸςτὸνθεόν , ch. 1:1; εἰςτὸνκόλποντοῦπατρός , ch. 1:18. 6-19. He prays for His disciples. 6. This verse particularizes ver. 4, and forms the transition to the intercessory prayer. σουτὸὄνομα ] Thy Name of Father, which was so constantly on the lips of our Lord;— and which derived its living meaning and power from His teaching: see Exodus 23:21. No especial emphasis on σου : it carries on the strain of address, and points to the emphatic σοί which follows, and the equally emphatic παρὰσοῦ in ver. 7. οὓςδέδ .] The Father gave them to Christ, by leading them to Christ, see ch. 6:37, 44, 45. σοὶἦσαν ] Thine they were— Israelites— Thy people, before:— not only outwardly, but Israelites indeed, see ch. 1:48, and thus prepared to receive Christ (so Stier, v. 411 ff., edn. 2). And thus the ἐκτοῦκόσμου answers to λαβεῖνἑαυτῷἔθνοςἐκμέσουἔθνους , Deuteronomy 4:34. But see the fuller sense below, on ver. 9. τὸνλ . σουτετήρηκαν ] They have observed Thy word— walked in the path of Thy commandments;— for so λόγοντηρεῖν means: see ch. 14:23— and reff. Stier understands their walking in the O.T. ordinances blameless, as Luke 1:6,— and thus (compare ch. 1:42, 46) recognizing Christ as the Messiah when He came. But this is perhaps hardly likely to have been set at the end of the sentence, after ἐμοὶαὐτοὺςδέδωκας . It is more likely that τὸνλόγονσου = τὰῥήματαἃδέδωκάςμοι , ver. 8, and is proleptically spoken. 7. πάνταὅσαδέδ . μοι , ‘ My whole words and works:’ εἰσίν , as contemplated in their separate meanings and testimonies: q. d. ‘ are all from Thee:’ — the collective assertion see at ver. 10. On this their conviction, which however had not reached its ripeness yet, see ch. 16:30. 8. Notice particularly here, as indeed throughout, the marked difference between the aorists and the perfects. τὰῥ .… δέδ . αὐτοῖς , and the similar sayings ch. 15:15 ., seem to be a reference to Deuteronomy 18:18, Deuteronomy 18:19, where it is said that the Prophet “ shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him.” The imparting to them of these ῥήματα was the efficient cause of their faith:— see their confession ch. 6:68, 69, where πεπιστεύκαμεν and ἐγνώκαμεν are connected as here. On the two last clauses we may notice that παρὰσοῦἐξῆλθον is more a matter of conviction from inference (see ch. 3:2),— ἔγνωσαν :— whereas the other side of the same truth, σύμεἀπέστειλας , the act of the Father unseen by us, is more a matter of pure faith,— ἐπίστευσαν . In the first, the ἔγνωσανἀληθῶς stamps our Lord’ s approval on their knowledge, and distinguishes it from such knowledge as the bare οἴδαμεν [ch. 3:2] of Nicodemus and his colleagues. 9. Stier remarks, that the Lord here begins to fulfil His promise Matthew 10:32. οὐπερὶτ . κόσμουἐρ .] The misconceptions which have been made of this verse (Calvin, Lampe, and even Luther, who elsewhere corrects himself, see Tholuck on John, edn. 6, p. 352) as implying a decree of exclusion for the vessels of wrath, may be at once removed by considering the usage of ὁκόσμος in this Prayer. The Lord does pray distinctly for ὁκόσμος , vv. 21, 23, that they may believe and know that the Father hath sent Him. He cannot therefore mean here that He does not pray (absolutely) for the world, but that He is not now asking for the world, does not pray this thing for the world. These have already believed and known; the prayer for them is therefore a different one, viz. that in vv. 11, 15. The mistake would be at once precluded for English readers by the paraphrase, I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world. ὅτισοίεἰσιν — in a fuller sense than σοὶἦσαν , ver. 6. That was their preparation for Christ; this is their abiding in Him, which is abiding in the Father, see next verse. 10. Compare ch. 16:15 and note. “ It were not so much if He had only said, ‘ All Mine is Thine;’ for that we may all say, that all we have is God’ s. But this is a far greater thing, that He inverts this and says, ‘ All Thine is Mine.’ This can no creature say before God.” Luther, Stier, v. 418, edn. 2. The E. V.,— ‘ All Mine are Thine,’ &c.,— gives the erroneous impression that persons only are meant, whereas it is all things, in the widest meaning,— the Godhead itself included,— of which this is asserted. ἐναὐτοῖς , not ‘ by their means,’ but in them; by that ἐγὼἐναὐτοῖς of ver. 23, the life of the vine in the branches; so that the fruit of the branches is the glory of the vine, by the sap of the vine living in the branches. All this again is proleptic. 11. The occasion, and substance of His prayer for them. οὐκἔτιεἰμὶἐντῷκ .] This shews us that ὁκόσμ . is not said of place alone, for the Lord Jesus is still here; but of state, the state of men in the flesh; sometimes viewed on its darker side, as overcoming men and bringing in spiritual death,— sometimes, as here, used in the most general sense. καί , not but; it expresses the simultaneous state of the Lord and His, see ch. 16:32, and note. ἅγιε ] Holy, as applied to God, peculiarly expresses that penetration of all His attributes by Love, which He only who here uttered it sees through in its length, breadth, and height:— which angels (Isaiah 6:3: Revelation 4:8) feel and express:— which men are privileged to utter, but can never worthily feel:— but which devils can neither feel nor worthily utter (see Mark 1:24). They know His Power and His Justice only. But His Holiness is especially employed in this work of τηρεῖν now spoken of. ἐντῷὀν . σου , not ‘ through Thine own Name,’ as E. V. which yet renders ‘ in Thy Name’ ver. 12 ,— but in the ὄνομα of vv. 6 and 12: see below. ᾧ ] Not only the best supported, but the best reading, though Stier maintains that it can bear no meaning χριστοπρεπῶς . The Name of God is that which was to be in the Angel of the Covenant, Exodus 23:21, see also Isaiah 9:6: Jeremiah 23:6. This Name,— not the essential God-head, but the covenant name, Jehovah our Righteousness,— the Father hath given to Christ, see Philippians 2:9; and it is the being kept in this, the truth and confession of this, for which He here prays. “ That which the Son has given to His disciples is no other than that which He himself has received from the Father, viz. the essential revelation of the Father.” Luthardt. Cf. Matthew 10:27. ἵναὦσινἓνκαθ . ἡμεῖς ] The oneness here is not merely harmony of will or of love,— as some have interpreted it, and then tried to weaken the Oneness of the Godhead by the καθώς ,— but oneness by the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, the gift of the covenant (1 Corinthians 6:17), and ultimately [as the close union implied by καθώς requires] oneness of nature, 2 Peter 1:4, where the ἐπαγγέλματαδεδώρηται answers to the ὄνομαὃδέδωκάςμοι here. “ Non ait, ut nobiscum sint unum,— aut simus unum ipsi et nos, sicut unum sumus nos,— sed ait, ut sint unum sicut et nos.” Aug. Tract, cvii. 5. 12. ἐφύλαξα ] See ch. 10:28-30. The aor. should be adhered to again: I kept them. The Lord here, as Cyril remarks, compares His keeping of His own, to that by the Father,— in a way only accountable by both Persons being of equal Power and Dignity. οὐδεὶς … εἰμὴ … ] So that Judas was of the number οὓςδέδωκάςμοι of ver. 9,— shewing us (1) the sense in which those words must be understood (see above); and (2) that of such persons it is true that there is for them no ‘ gratia irresistibilis,’ no ‘ keeping in God’ s Name’ independently of their ‘ keeping God’ s word,’ ver. 6, which Judas did not do. ὁυἱ . τ . ἀπ .] See ref. 2 Thess. As the other disciples by true τήρησις of the divine ῥήματα given to them, rose from being natural men to be the children of God, so Judas, through want of the same, sunk from the state of the natural man to that of the lost— the children of the devil (Olsh. nearly). Remark, it is not οὐδένα … ἀπώλεσα , εἰμὴτὸνυἱὸντῆςἀπ .: Christ did not lost him (compare ch. 18:9, where there is no exception), but he lost himself. ἡγραφή — in which this was indicated, viz. the passages alleged by Peter, Acts 1:20: see ch. 13:18. Beware again of any evasion of the full telic sense of ἵνα . 13. νῦνδέ ; opposed to ὅτεἤμην ver. 12, implying, ‘ But I shall be here to keep them no more. And therefore I pray this prayer in their hearing, that’ &c. On ἡχ . ἡἐμή see ch. 15:11; 16:24; also the reference to these words in 1 John 1:4. 14-16. See ver. 8. Ver. 14 contains the manner in which He ἐφύλαξεναὐτούς , by giving them the Divine Word;— and the reason of the τήρησις prayed for, viz., because they would be objects of hatred to the world: ἐγώ and ὁκόσμος being opposed. καθὼςἐγώ ] See ch. 15:18. 15. οὐκἐρωτῶ ] Said mostly for their sakes, for whom it was necessary that they should abide yet in the flesh, to do God’ s work, and (ver. 17) to be sanctified by God’ s truth. τοῦπον .] Not ‘ from the evil,’ as E. V.; but from the evil One, see the usage of our Apostle in 1 John 2:13, 1 John 2:14, ὅτινενικήκατετὸνπονηρόν ,— ib. 5:18, and compare ib. 3:12. 16. Repeated, as the ground both of the οὐκἐρωτῶ ,— for they are already not of the world, above the world, so that they need not be removed from it in order to distinction from it;— and of the ἀλλ ʼ ἵνα ,— for they are clean (ch. 13:10); ‘ Keep them from the polluter.’ This leads on to (vv. 17-19) the process of sanctification through the knowledge of the truth imparted to them by Christ, and expanded in them by the Spirit. 17. ἁγιάζειν here and in ver. 19 carries the meaning, which unites the two uses, of consecration to God. (1) In them, this setting apart for Him was a long and gradual process, to be accomplished by conflicts, and the deeper sinking in of the Truth by the blows of affliction, and the purifying fire of the Spirit: in them it was strictly sanctification, the making holy: but (2) in Him it was that pure and entire self-consecration by His submission to the Father’ s holy will, the entire possession of His sinless humanity with the living and speaking Truth of God, which should be at the same time the efficient cause of their sanctification and their Pattern. Such an High Priest became us (see Hebrews 7:26), who are to be ourselves priests unto God. Revelation 20:6. ἐν , not ‘ by,’ but in: see on ver. 11. The truth is the element in which the ἁγ . takes place. ὁλόγ . ὁσός ] Compare Acts 20:32. Thy word, in its inner subjective power. Ver. 18 is proleptic,— and received its fulfilment ch. 20:21. He does not merely leave them in the world, but sends them into it, to witness to this same truth of God: see ch. 15:16. 19. See above on ver. 17. Notice, says Meyer, the emphatic correlation of αὐτῶν — ἐγὼἐμαυτόν — καὶαὐτοί . It is clear against all Socinian inferences from this verse, that all that part of ἁγιάζειν implied in ch. 10:36 is here excluded: and only that intended which is expressed Hebrews 2:10 by διὰπαθημάτωντελειῶσαι . Of this, His death was the crowning act, and was also the one to which the ὑπὲραὐτῶν most directly applies; but the whole is included. The confining the meaning to His sacrifice (Chrys., Euthym.), and the ἵνακαὶαὐτοὶ .… to their martyrdom, or their spiritual self-offering, Romans 12:1 (Euthym.), is insufficient for the depth of the words. ἐνἀληθ .] in truth: what truth, is evident from ver. 17, where, in the repetition, ὁλόγ . ὁσὸςἀλήθειάἐστιν , the article is also wanting: see also ch. 1:14; 4:24: 3 John 1:3,— for ἀλήθ , without the article. But the distinction is perhaps somewhat obscured after a preposition. 20. The connexion is the ἀπέστειλααὐτοὺςεἰςτ . κόσμον , ver. 18. The present part. expresses the state of faith in which all believers are found: the future (of the .) would refer more to the act of belief by which that state is begun. But perhaps it is best to take the pres. as proleptic. It is strikingly set forth here that all subsequent belief on Christ would take place through the apostolic word: see Romans 10:16, Romans 10:17. 21. The ἵνα here hardly can regard the subject-matter of the ἐρωτῶ , ver. 20, but rather we should supply after that word ταῦτα , and understand this ἵνα as expressing the object of the prayer respecting both. The subject-matter of the prayer is, that they may be kept in God’ s name and sanctified in God’ s truth; and if this be so, their unity with the Son and the Father follows, 1 John 1:3. But here it is not merely ‘ with,’ but in, the Son and the Father;— because the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and ‘ He that is joined to the Lord, is one Spirit:’ see ver. 11. This unity has its true and only ground in faith in Christ through the Word of God as delivered by the Apostles; and is therefore not mere outward uniformity, nor can such uniformity produce it. At the same time its effects are to be real and visible, such that the world may see them. ἵναπιστ .] Not parallel with the former ἵνα , as if πιστ . ὁκόσμος meant the same as πάντεςἓνὦσι , that all may be brought to believe. Nor again can the words mean that the unbelieving and condemned world, at the end, may be persuaded ‘ that Thou hast sent Me.’ Such a rendering would surely be repugnant to the spirit of the prayer, and the use of the word πιστεύω in our Gospel. Rather is it,— ‘ that this their testimony, being borne by them all, and in all ages, may continue to convince the world, so that many in the world may believe,’ &c. The ὅτισύμεἀπέστειλας implies belief in the whole Work and Office of Christ. Here our Lord certainly prays for the world,— see above on ver. 9. See a remarkable parallel, Revelation 3:9, where, as Stier truly remarks, the persons spoken of are penitents. 22, 23. Grotius and others interpret this δόξα , “ potestas faciendi miracula,” and refer to ch. 2:11 and ch. 11:40; but wrongly:— for if so, the αὐτοῖς must mean the Apostles only, whereas it is distinctly referred to the believers of all time. The δόξα is (Lü cke, De Wette, Stier:— Meyer understands it of the heavenly glory, Romans 8:17) the glory of Christ as the only-begotten Son (ch. 1:14), full of grace and truth (see ver. 5 and note), which by virtue of His exaltation and the unity of all believers in Him through the Spirit, has become (not, shall be) theirs, Ephesians 1:18; Ephesians 2:6: Romans 8:30: not yet fully, nor as it is His, but as each can receive and shew it forth. The perfection of it is spoken of, ver. 24. We have the same recurrences of ἵνα as in ver. 21, and the same dependence (see var. readd.). The second of them here expresses not merely the similarity of their unity to that of the Son and Father,— but the actuality of its subsistence, in Christ abiding in them and the Father in Christ. On τετελ . εἰςἕν , see reff. γινώσκῃ here, parallel as it is to πιστεύσῃ above, cannot be interpreted of a bare recognition, or of a recognition at the final judgment,— but must be taken to mean that salutary knowledge by which from time to time the children of the world are by God called to become the children of light. See the same words, and note, ch. 14:31, also ch. 13:35, and observe that in all three places the recognition is that of love;— in ch. 13:35, of the disciples one to another; in ch. 14:31, of Jesus to the Father; here, of the Father to believers, as perfected into unity in the Son of His love. “ Observe,” says Meyer, “ how the glance of the Intercessor reaches in these verses even to the highest aim of His work on earth, when the world shall be believing, and Christ Himself actually the Saviour of the world, ch. 4:42, cf. ch. 10:16.” 24. ὅδέδωκάςμοι ] The neuter has a peculiar solemnity, uniting the whole Church together as one gift of the Father to the Son: see ch. 6:39, note. Then the κἀκεῖνοι resolves it into the great multitude whom no man can number, and comes home to the heart of every individual believer with inexpressibly sweet assurance of an eternity with Christ. θέλω is not the θέλω of ch. 12:21: 1 Corinthians 7:7, but more like that of Mar 6:25,— an expression of will founded on acknowledged right: compare διατίθεμαι , Luke 22:29. Compare also the θέλω and ὃδέδωκ . μοι , with ch. 5:21; 6:44. ὅπουεἰμὶἐγώ ] i.e. in the glorified state: see ch. 12:26 and note: also ch. 14:3. ἵναθεωρ .] This is the completion of ver. 22,— the open beholding of His glory, spoken of 1 John 3:2, which shall be coincident with our being changed into His perfect image. θεωρ . is to behold and partake— the very case supposes it. No mere spectator could behold this glory. See Romans 8:17 end, and 2 Corinthians 3:18. ὅτιἠγ . με .… ] The most glorious part of this sight of glory will be to behold the whole mystery of redemption unfolded in the glory of Christ’ s Person,— and to see how, before the being of the creature, that eternal Love was, which gave the glory to Christ of which all creation is but the exponent. On κατ . κόσ . see reff. 25, 26. δίκαιε is connected with the final clause of ver. 24. The Righteousness of the Father is witnessed by the beginning (πρὸκατ . κόσ .) of Redemption, and by the glorification of the elect from Christ; but also by ὁκόσμοςσεοὐκἔγνω ,— the final distinction made by His justice between the world and His. The first καί is in the quasi-disjunctive usage so common with our Evangelist, see ch. 16:32, note,— and contrasts with the δέ immediately following: the more classical construction would be τε — δέ (Lü cke). The second καί merely couples the preceding to the following, as depending upon it: see Matthew 11:27. This ἔγνω , ἔγνωσαν , ἐγνώρισα , γνωρίσω , shew that our Lord spoke here of the then present time and disciples again, at the close of His prayer. The γνωρίσω is by the whole work and testimony of the Spirit completed in the Kingdom of God. This promise has been in fulfilment through all the history of the Church. And the great result of this manifestation of the Father’ s name is, that the wonderful Love wherewith He loved Christ, may dwell in (not the Apostles merely— the future γνωρίσω has again thrown the meaning onward to the great body of believers) them,— i.e. the perfect, living knowledge of God in Christ, which reveals, and in fact is, this love. And this can only be by κἀγὼἐναὐτοῖς — Christ dwelling in their hearts by faith, and renewing and enlightening them by His Spirit. He does not say, ‘ Thou in them’ — but I in them and Thou in Me: see ver. 23. Chap. 18-20. Final manifestation of Jesus as the Lord, in reference to the now accomplished rejection of Him by the unbelief of Israel, and the sorely tried but eventually confirmed faith of His own. And herein 18:1-19:16. His voluntary submission of Himself to His enemies and to the unbelief of Israel. 1-11. His betrayal and apprehension. 1-3. Matthew 26:30-47. Mark 14:26-43.Luke 22:39-53 Luke 22:39-53. On the omission by John of the conflict of the Redeemer’ s soul in Gethsemane, I would remind the reader of what has been said in the Prolegomena on the character of this Gospel. The attempt to find in this omission a discrepancy between the setting forth of the Redeemer by John and the synoptic Gospels, is, as usual, unsuccessful. John presents us with most striking instances of the troubling of the human soul of Christ by the suffering which was before Him: see ch. 12:23-27; 13:21. Compare notes on Matt. ver. 36, and throughout the section. 1. τῶνκέδρων ] This is evidently a Greek corruption of the Hebrew ; and coincides with the LXX in ref. and 3 Kings 15:13, where however has τοῦκέδρων . If there were cedars in the ravine, the corruption would be easily accounted for. Suidas, under Ἰαβίν , quotes Ps. 82:9 thus, Ἰαβὶνἐντῷχειμάῤῥῳτῶνκισσῶν . Instances of the practice of changing foreign names into other words bearing sense in the new language are common in all countries. This being so, it is perhaps safer to follow the best mss., even against our own conviction, that St. John can hardly have written τῶνκέδρων . Josephus calls it χειμ . κεδρῶνος , or φάραγξκεδρῶνος . Antt. viii. 1. 5; ix. 7. 3: see 2 Kings 23:6, 2 Kings 23:12. The ravine in the bottom of which flows the Kidron, is to the East of Jerusalem, between the city and the Mount of Olives. κῆπος ] Lü cke suggests that the owner of this garden may have been friendly to (or a disciple of?) Jesus. It was called Gethsemane,— Matt., Mark. Traditions as to its site are, as usual, various. A square plot of ground in the depth of the ravine is now usually pointed out, and seems to have been fixed on at the time when the empress Helena visited Jerusalem, a.d. 326. Euseb. says Gethsemane was at the Mount of Olives: Jerome, at the foot of the mount. The language of Luk 21:37 leads to a belief that it may have been higher up the mount. Robinson, i. 346. 2. often,— see Luke 21:37 [ch. 8:1]. These accurate notices of our Evangelist are especially found in this last portion of his Gospel: cf. vv. 13, 24, 28; ch. 19:14, 20, 41, &c. 3. See, on this band of men, note on Matt. ver. 47. Lü cke refers to Dion. Hal. ix. to shew that lanterns and torches were part of the utensils of military on a night march. φανοί appear to be strictly torches,— any blazing substance held in the hand;— and λαμπάδες , lights, fed with oil. The weapons were swords and staves,— Matt., Mark. The fact of its being full moon did not make the lights unnecessary, as, in searching for a prisoner, they might have to enter dark places. 4-11. Matthew 26:48-56. Mark 14:44-52.Luke 22:48-53 Luke 22:48-53. 4. On εἰδὼςπάντατὰἐρχ . see Matthew 26:45. ἐξῆλθεν — probably, from the shade of the trees into the moonlight;— hardly, as De Wette and Lü cke suggest, from some building in the garden. τίναζητ ., spoken,— as was the saying ἐφ ʼ ὃπάρει , Matthew 26:50,— to carry reproof to the conscience of those addressed: and also to obtain for so solemn an act as the delivering Himself up to them, the formal declaration of their intention to take Him. “ When men sought Him to make Him a king, He fled: now that they seek Him to put Him to death, He goes forth to meet them.” Stier, vi. 252, edn. 2. 5. Some among them knew Him (Matthew 26:55), others probably not. This answer may have been given by some one in authority among the Roman soldiers, who had it in command ‘ to apprehend Jesus of Nazareth.’ εἱστήκει … μετ ʼ αὐτῶν ] I believe these words to be the description of an eyewitness;— John detected Judas standing among them, and notices the detail, as is his constant habit, by way of enhancing the tragic character of the history. The synoptic narrative related the kiss which presently took place: but this self-tradition of our Lord was not related in it. John therefore adds this touch of exactness, to shew that the answer Ἰησοῦντ . Ν . was not given because they were ignorant of His Person, so as not to be able to say ‘ Thee;’ — but because they feared to say it. 6. The question on the miraculous nature of this incident is not whether it were a miracle at all (for it is evident that it must be regarded as one), but whether it were an act specially intended by our Lord, or a result of the superhuman dignity of His person and the majestic calmness of His reply. I believe the latter alternative to be the right one. Commentators cite various instances of the confusion of the enemies of innocent men before the calmness and dignity of their victims, how much more was this likely to be the case when He in whom was no sin, and who spake as never man spake, came forth to meet His implacable foes as the self-sacrificing Lamb of God. So that I regard it rather as a miracle consequent upon that which Christ said and did, and the state of mind in which His enemies were,— than as one, in the strict sense, wrought by Him: bearing however always in mind, that to Him nothing was unexpected, or a mere result, but every thing foreknown. With this view what follows is also consistent, rather than with the other. The distinction is an important one, as the view which we take of our Lord’ s mind towards His captors must enter, as an element, into our understanding of the whole of this scene, and indeed of the solemn occurrences which follow. Such incidents as this are not related by the Evangelists, and least of all by St. John, as mere astounding facts, but as grounds on which we are to enquire, and determine for ourselves, as to the “ glory, full of grace and truth,” which was in Him, whom, not having seen, we love. 8. Bengel strikingly says of this ἐγώεἰμι “ Tertio dicet olim.” And Augustine, “ Quid judicature faciet, qui judicandus hoc fecit? Quid regnaturus poterit, qui moriturus hoc potuit?” Tract. cxii. 3. ἄφετετούτους , “ quos illi cæ ci adoriebantur.” Bengel. This saying was sufficient to shew Peter and the rest what was the appointed course for them;— the ἄφ . τούτ . ὑπάγειν to the band, is ὑπάγετεὑμεῖς to the Apostles. 9. See ch. 17:12. An unquestionable proof, if any were wanted, that the words of ch. 17 are no mere description of the mind of our Lord at the time, nor free arrangement of His words, but his very words themselves. This is recognized even by De Wette. On the application of the saying, we may remark that the words unquestionably had a much deeper meaning than any belonging to this occasion; but that the remarks so often made in this commentary on the fulfilment of prophecies must be borne in mind;— that to ‘ fulfil’ a prophecy is not to exhaust its capability of being again and again fulfilled:— that the words of the Lord have many stages of unfolding;— and that the temporal deliverance of the Apostles now, doubtless was but a part in the great spiritual safe-keeping which the Lord asserted by anticipation in these words. 10. At this time took place the kiss of Judas, in accordance with the agreement entered into, and to assure the captors that the person thus offering Himself was indeed Jesus of Nazareth, and no substitute for him: see note on Matt. ver. 49. The other view, that the kiss took place first, before the incidents of our vv. 4-9 (Friedlieb, Archä ologie der Leidensgeschichte, p. 68), is to me quite inconceivable. On Peter’ s act, see Matt. ver. 51. The names of Peter and Malchus are only found here:— τὸδεξιόν only here and in Luke. The (external) ear, though severed, was apparently still hanging on the cheek;— for our Lord is said in Luke 22:51, to have touched τοῦὠτίουαὐτοῦ in performing the healing. 11. τὴνθήκ . = τὸντόπ . αὐτῆς , Matt., where see notes. τὸποτ .] A striking allusion to the prayer in Gethsemane; for the image does not elsewhere occur in our Evangelist. See Matthew 20:22 and . οὐμὴπίω ] am I not to drink it? “ non vis ut bibam?” Vulg. Sixt. “ Huc enim tendebat pugna Petri.” Bengel. 12-24. Jesus before the Jewish High Priests.— Peculiar to John. See below. 12. See Acts 21:31 . The ὑπηρ . τ . Ἰ . were the officers sent by the Sanhedrim. Luthardt remarks: “ He before whose aspect, and ἐγώεἰμι , the whole band had been terrified and cast to the ground, now suffers himself to be taken, bound, and led away. This contrast the Evangelist has in mind here. To apprehend and bind One, all gave their help: the cohort, the chiliarch, and the Jewish officers. This the Evangelist brings prominently forward, to shew how deep the impression of that previous incident still was: only by the help of all did they feel themselves secure. And thus it was ordered, that the disciples might escape with the more safety.” 13. On Annas, see note Luke 3:2. The influence of Annas appears to have been very great, and Acts 4:6, he is called the High Priest, in the year following this. The whole matter is discussed in Friedlieb, Arch. der Leid. § 22. He ends by saying that the narrative evidently rests upon some arrangement with regard to the High Priesthood now unknown to us, but accountable enough by foreign influence and the deterioration of the priestly class through bribes and intrigues, to which Josephus and the Talmud sufficiently testify. This hearing is entirely distinct from that in the other Gospels. There, no questions are asked of Jesus about His disciples or doctrine (ver. 19): there witnesses are produced, and the whole proceedings are after a legal form. That hearing was in a public court of justice, before the assembled Sanhedrim; this was a private and informal questioning. That Annas should be so often called ‘ the High Priest,’ is no objection to this view: see on Luke as above: see also note on ver. 24. The two hearings are maintained to be one and the same by Luther, Grot., Bengel, Lampe, Tholuck, Lü cke, De Wette, Friedlieb, Wordsworth, &c.;— the view here taken is maintained by Chrys., , , Olsh., Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Meyer, Ebrard, Wieseler, Hase, Lange, Hess, von Meyer, von Gerlach, Luthardt, and Stier (vi. 284, edn. 2). 14. See ch. 11:49-52 and notes; also on τοῦἐνιαυτοῦἐκείνου , ver. 13. 15. [ὁ ] ἄλλοςμαθ . is here mentioned for the first time. There is no reason to doubt the universal persuasion that by this name John intends himself, and refers to the mention in ch. 13:23 of a disciple whom Jesus loved. The idea that it was Judas Iscariot (Heumann), is surely too absurd to need confutation. The [ὁ ] ἄλλος , συνεις . τῷἸησ ., ἦνγνωστὸςτῷἀρχ . (as a matter of individual notice), and the whole character of the incident, will prevent any real student of St. John’ s style and manner from entertaining such a supposition for a moment. How John was known to the High Priest we have no means of forming a conjecture. The palace of the High Priest was probably the dwelling of both Annas and Caiaphas. 16. τῇθυρ .] It was not unexampled to have female porters among the Jews: see reff. 17. See the whole subject of Peter’ s denials vv. 69-75. This first denial was to all appearance rashly and almost inadvertently made, from a mere feeling of shame. Lü cke suggests that Peter may have set himself among the servants of the High Priest to bear out his denial. The μὴκαὶσύ (ver. 25), as Luthardt remarks, implies that the other disciple had already been recognized as a follower of Jesus, and had escaped annoyance. 19. This preliminary enquiry seems to have had for its object to induce the prisoner to criminate himself, and furnish matter of accusation before the Sanhedrim. τῶνμαθ ., His party, or adherents, as the High Priest would understand His disciples to be; how many, and who they were, and with what object gathered together;— and what His customary teaching of them had been. Of these, Jesus says nothing: compare vv. 8, 9. But He substitutes for them ὁκόσμος , to which He had spoken plainly. 20. ἐγώ , emphatic: q. d. I am one, who … παῤῥησίᾳ , plainly (subjective): not openly, in an objective sense, which the word will not bear (.). ὁκόσμος here = πάντεςοἱἸουδ ., or perhaps rather, all who were there to hear. By the omission of the art. before συναγ ., the distinction is made between synagogues, of which there were many, and τὸἱερόν , which was but one. ἐνκρ . ἐλ . οὐδ .] Stier thinks there was an allusion in these words to Isaiah 45:19; Isaiah 48:16,— in the last of which places the Messiah is speaking. 21. See ch. 5:31, which appears to have been a legal maxim. οὗτοι , demonstrative: “ videtur innuere quod digito extenso ad circumstantes provocaverit.” Bengel. The ὑπηρέται of ch. 7:46 may have been present: see next verse. 22. See Acts 23:2. εἷςπαρεστ . τ . ὑπ . was probably one of the band who took Jesus (cf. ὑπηρέται , ver. 12), and had brought Him hither. ῥάπισμα — uncertain whether with the hand or a staff. ῥαπίσαι , ῥαβδῷπλῆξαιἢἀλοῆσαι , ;— πατάξαιτὴνγνάθονἁπλῇτῇχειρί , Suidas: see Matthew 5:39. ῥάπισμα is not good Greek: see Phryn. p. 175, and Lobeck’ s note. They had staves, and perhaps thus used them: see note on Matthew 26:67. This blow was a signal for the indignities which followed. 23. μαρτύρ . in a legal way. εἰδέ “ vim habet affirmandi,” Bengel. It has been often and well observed, that our Lord here gives us the best interpretation of Mat 5:39— that it does not exclude the remonstrating against unjust oppression, provided it be done calmly and patiently. 24. From what has been above said, it will be seen that I cannot acquiesce in the pluperfect rendering of ἀπέστειλεν , to bring about which the οὖν has apparently been omitted. I believe the verse simply to describe what followed on the preceding:— Annas therefore sent Him bound to Caiaphas the High Priest. εἶτα , μηδὲοὕτωςεὑρίσκοντέςτιπλέον , πέμπουσιναὐτὸνδεδεμένονπρὸςΚαϊάφαν , Chrys. There is no real difficulty in this rendering, if Annas and Caiaphas lived in one palace, or at all events transacted public affairs in one and the same. They would naturally have different apartments, and thus the sending from one to the other would be very possible; as also would the incident related by Luke 22:61: see the extract from Robinson, Matthew 26:69, note. “ The Evangelist had no need to relate the hearing before Caiaphas, for he has related ch. 11:47 ff.: and we have ere this been familiarized with the habit of our Evangelist not to narrate any further the outward process, where he has already by anticipation substantially given us its result.” Luthardt. 25-27. Matthew 26:71-74.Mark 14:69-72 Mark 14:69-72.Luke 22:58-61 Luke 22:58-61:— see note on Matthew 26:69. Peter was in the court-yard of the house— the αὐλή . 26. This was about an hour after the former,— Luke, ver. 59. Notice the emphatic ἐγώ : as we say, with my own eyes. 28-19:16. Jesus before the Gentile governor. Matthew 27:2, Matthew 27:11-30. Mark 15:1-19. Luke 23:1-25. Before this comes in the section of Luke, ch. 22:66-71, containing the close of the examination before the Sanhedrim, which did not happen till the morning. This undesigned agreement between Luke and John further confirms the justice of the view respecting the two hearings maintained above: see note on Luke, as above. 28-40. Pilate’ s first attempt to deliver Him. 28. κ . αὐτοὶοὐκεἰσῆλθ .] I have already discussed the difficulties attending the subject of our Lord’ s last Passover, in the note on Matthew 26:17-19. I will add here some remarks of Friedlieb’ s, Arch. der Leid. § 30. “ The Jews would not enter the Præ torium that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover. For the entrance of a Jew into the house of a Gentile made him unclean till the evening. It is surprising, that according to this declaration of the Holy Evangelist, the Jews had yet to eat the Passover, whereas Jesus and His disciples had already eaten it in the previous night. And it is no less surprising, that the Jews in the early morning should have been afraid of rendering themselves unclean for the Passover,— since the Passover could not be kept till evening, i.e. on the next day, and the uncleanness which they dreaded did not, by the law, last till the next day. For this reason, the passage in John labours under no small exegetic difficulties, which we cannot altogether solve, from want of accurate knowledge of the customs of the time. Possibly the law concerning Levitical defilements and purifications had in that age been made more stringent or otherwise modified; possibly, they called some other meal, besides the actual Passover, by its name. This last we certainly, with our present knowledge of Hebrew antiquities, must assume; for the law respecting uncleanness will not allow us to interpret this passage of the proper Passover on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, nor indeed of any evening meal at all.” The whole depends on this: can φαγεῖντὸπάσχα mean any thing else besides eating the paschal lamb in the strict sense? This is a question which in our day we have no power of answering; and, as De Wette has shewn (in loc.), none of the instances cited on the affirmative side are applicable. See note on ch. 19:14. Mr. Wratislaw, in his little volume of Sermons and Dissertations (Lond. J. W. Parker, 1859), has proposed a solution of the difficulties which is at least very ingenious. Its chief point is, that the Jews, reckoning their days from evening to evening, and also holding two evenings, the former beginning at 3 p.m., the other at sunset, the space between the evenings, during which the passover was to be sacrificed (Exodus 12:6), might be reckoned indifferently, sometimes as part of the preceding, sometimes as part of the following day. Then he thinks that in order to avoid any mistake, they considered the 14th Nisan to begin at 3 p.m. on Thursday, and to end at sunset on Good Friday, thus extending the day to its utmost possible limit. He instances similar confusion between the 14th and 15th Nisan, or rather Abib, in Exodus 12:18 and Leviticus 23:6, arising from the space between the evenings being reckoned in the one case as belonging to the former, and in the other as belonging to the latter day; and suggests that the same ambiguity will account for Josephus’ s statement that the Jews kept the feast of unleavened bread for eight days. Thus, he says, any time after 3 p.m. on Thursday might be called by St. Mark “ the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover,” and by St. Luke, “ the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed,” it being killed after the first and before the second evening on Friday, and thus, loosely speaking, within the day, which commenced at 3 o’ clock, and, strictly speaking, within that which commenced at sunset on Thursday. Similarly any time after 3 or sunset on the Thursday might be called the παρασκευή or preparation of the passover, which was to be eaten at some time after sunset on the Friday. Then he understands, that the disciples made all preparations on Thursday afternoon for the passover, which was to be killed the next afternoon, and eaten the following night: and that the passover of which our Lord so earnestly desired to partake, was that which was thus prepared, but of which He knew He was not Himself destined to partake. This he supports by the true reading in Luke 22:16. “ If this view,” he adds, “ be accepted, there is no longer any question, as far as the passover is concerned, about reconciling St. John with the synoptical Gospels. The eucharist will thus have been instituted at an ordinary meal, eaten the evening before the paschal feast in the same room in which it was intended afterwards to celebrate the passover.” See this more fully illustrated in the vol. above alluded to, pp. 168-175. The main objections to it seem to me to be, 1) the total absence of any trace of such an usage, of eating a preliminary solemn meal in the passover-chamber; 2) the plain and undeniable impression on the mind of every unbiassed reader of the synoptic Gospels, that the meal of our Lord and the Twelve was a passover, and that His ἐπιθυμίᾳἐπεθύμησα describes, not that which He desired to do, owing however to His predetermined course would not do,— but that which He was then doing in the fulfilment of that His earnest desire. So that I am afraid Mr. Wratislaw’ s ingenious solution leaves us, for all essentials of the question, where we were before: merely, by suggesting the introduction of possible new elements of confusion, giving us an additional warning not to be rash in assuming a discrepancy between the Evangelists, where computations of time may have been so vague and various. 29. Though Pilate, having granted the service of the σπεῖρα to the Sanhedrim, must have been aware of the circumstances under which Jesus was brought before him, he demanded a formal accusation on which legally to proceed: “ se scire dissimulabat,” Rupert, in Meyer. 30. They do not mention the charge of blasphemy brought against Him by the Sanhedrim, for fear of the entire rejection of their cause, as by Gallio, Acts 18:16. The Procurators in such cases had a discretionary power. On what they did say, Grot. observes, “ Quod probationibus deerat, id supplere volunt sua auctoritate.” 31. This answer is best regarded as an ironical reproach founded on their apparently proud assertion in ver. 30— and amounting to this:— ‘ If you suppose I am to have such implicit confidence in your judgment concerning this prisoner as to take his guilt on your word, take him and put him to death (for κρίνατε must be thus understood,— see below) according to your law;’ reminding them that the same Roman power which had reserved capital cases for his jurisdiction, also expected proper cognizance to be taken of them, and not that he should be the mere executioner of the Sanhedrim. ἡμ . οὐκἔξ .] From the time when Archelaus was deposed (a.d. 6 or 7), and Judæ a became a Roman province, it would follow by the Roman law that the Jews lost the power of life and death. Josephus tells us, Antt. xx. 9. 1, that οὐκἔξονἦνχωρὶςτῆςἐκείνου (the Procurator’ s) γνώμηςκαθίσαισυνέδριον ,— i.e. to hold a court of judgment in capital cases. Some have thought that this power was reserved to them in religious matters, as of blasphemy and sacrilege; but no proof has been adduced of this; the passages commonly alleged— Jos. Antt. xiv. 10. 2: B. J. vi. 2. 4, and Acts 7:58, not applying (see note on Acts ut supra). The Talmud relates that this had taken place forty years (or more, see Lü cke, ii. 737 note) before the destruction of Jerusalem. Biscoe, on the Acts, pp. 134-167, argues at great length that the Jews had this power; and that the words here merely mean that they could not put to death on the Sabbath, which, according to the usual custom of executing the next day after judgment, would now have been the case. But this treatment of the word is unjustifiable. Can we suppose for a moment that this can have been meant, when there is not a word in the text to imply it? We may hope that the day for such forced interpretations is fast passing away. Friedlieb (§ 31) gives the most consistent account of the matter. In the Roman provinces generally the Propræ tor or Proconsul conducted judicial proceedings. But Judæ a, which belonged to the province of Syria, was an exception. There was a Procurator cum potestate, who exercised the right of judicial cognizance. Jerusalem however possessed the privilege of judging all lighter causes before the three-and-twenty, and heavier causes, with the sole exception of judicia de capite, before the great Sanhedrim: so that none but these reserved cases remained for the Procurator. Pilate seems to have judged these cases at his visits during the festivals; which would fall conveniently for the purpose, it being the custom in Jerusalem, to execute great criminals at the Feasts. In other provinces the governors made circuits and held assizes throughout their jurisdictions. See on this subject Lü cke’ s note, ii. 736. 32. See Matthew 20:19 al.: ch. 12:32, 33. Had the Jews taken Him and judged Him, He would have been stoned, not crucified. And this whole section, vv. 28-32, serves to shew how the divine purpose was accomplished. 33. This question probably arose out of what Pilate had previously heard, not from any charge to this effect being made between our vv. 31 and 34. Had such a charge been made, our Lord’ s question ver. 34 would be unnatural. Pilate summoned Jesus in, who had been as yet outside with the Jews. This was the formal reception of the case before him;— as the Roman soldiers must now have formally taken charge of Jesus, as servants of the Roman authorities: having previously, when granted by Pilate to the Chief Priests, acted as their police. The judgments of the Romans were always public and sub dio, see ch. 19:13;— but the enquiries and examinations might be private. In this case Pilate appears to have wished to obtain an account from Jesus apart from the clamours of the chief priests and the mob. 34. On this whole interview, see note on Luke vv. 3, 4. I regard this question ἀπὸσεαυτ . κ .τ .λ . as intended to distinguish the senses of the word King as applied to Jesus: and of course not (De Wette, Lü cke) for the information of Him who asked it, but to bring out this distinction in Pilate’ s mind. If he asked of himself, the word could certainly have but one meaning, and that one would be wrongly applied;— if from information derived from the Jews, this very fact would open the way to the true meaning in which He was King of the Jews. Stier and Ebrard think there may be some reference in ἀπὸσεαυτοῦ to a momentary earnestness in Pilate’ s own mind,— a suspicion that his prisoner was what he was charged with being (see ch. 19:8, 12), from the mention of which he immediately (ver. 35) recoils, and implies the other side of the dilemma. 35. Pilate at once repudiates the idea of his having any share in Jewish expectations, or taking any personal interest in Jewish matters: all his information he has derived from the public accusation of the people and chief priests. Then in τίἐπ . is implied, ‘ There is no definiteness in their charge: let me have thine own account, thy ex-parte statement, that I may at least know something definite of the case.’ 36. This answer goes to explain the injustice of the charge of διαστρέψαιτὸἔθνος (Luke 23:2), and to shew Pilate something of the nature of the kingdom which Jesus really came to establish. οὐκ … ἐκτοῦκόσ . τούτου ] not belonging to (ch. 8:23; 10:16) this world; not springing from, arising out of this world;— and therefore not to be supported by this world’ s weapons. There is no denial that His Kingdom is over this world— but that it is to be established by this world’ s power. The words not only deny, they affirm: if not of this world, then of another world. They assert this other world before the representative of those who boasted of their ‘ orbis terrarum.’ Notice the solemn repetition of ἐκτοῦκόσμουτούτου . οἱὑπηρ ., certainly not angels (as Stier) nor angels and disciples (as Lampe). This sentence is elliptical, and οἱὑπηρ . is included under the supposition introduced by εἰ . ‘ If &c.,— I should have had servants, and those servants would have fought.’ παραδοθῶ ] This delivering up is referred to ch. 19:16— παρέδωκεναὐτὸναὐτοῖς . The νῦν has been absurdly pressed by the Romanist interpreters to mean that at some time His Kingdom would be ἐντεῦθεν — i.e. ἐκτοῦκόσμουτούτου — as if its essential character could ever be changed. νῦν implies, ‘ as the case now stands;’ — a demonstratio ad oculos from the fact that no servants of His had contended or were contending in his behalf: see similar usages of νῦν , ch. 8:40; 9:41; 15:22, 24: Romans 7:16, Romans 7:17 al. 37. It is best to take οὐκοῦνβ . εἶσύ as interrogative, Art Thou then a King? on account of what follows. σύ , emphatic and sarcastic. σὺλέγεις ] A formula neither classical nor found in the LXX, but frequent in the Rabbinical writings: see Schö ttgen, Hor. Hebr. on Matthew 26:25. It seems best to punctuate at λέγεις , and regard ὅτι as the reason for the affirmation conveyed in σὺλέγεις . This agrees best with the order of the words, β . εἰμ . [ἐγώ ], and with the continued affirmation which follows. The first ἐγώ , if genuine, refers to Pilate’ s σύ . ἐγὼ … τῇἀληθείᾳ ] Our Lord here preached the Truth of his mission, upholding that side of it best calculated for the doubting philosophic mind of the day, of which Pilate was a partaker. He declares the unity and objectivity of Truth;— and that Truth must come from above, and must come through a Person sent by God, and that that Person was Himself. ἐγώ , both times emphatic, and majestically set (see above) against the preceding scornful σύ . εἰςτοῦτογεγέννημαι implies that He was born a King, and that He was born with a definite purpose. The words are a pregnant proof of an Incarnation of the Son of God. This great truth is further expressed by ἐλήλυθαεἰςτ . κ .: ‘ I have been born, but not therein commencing my being— I have come into the world.’ Thus certainly are the words to be understood, and not of his public appearance, his ἀνάδειξις (as Lü cke, De Wette), nor as synonymous with γεγέννημαι . It is this saying which began the fear in Pilate, which the charge of the Jews, ch. 19:7, increased. τῇἀληθείᾳ , not τὴνἀλήθειαν : not ‘ the truth,’ so that what He said should be true,— but to the Truth, in its objective reality: see ch. 17:17, 19, of which deep saying this is the popular exposition for his present hearer. The Lord, besides, sets forth here in the depth of these words, the very idea of all kinghood. The King is the representative of the truth: the truth of dealing between man and man;— the truth of that power, which in its inmost truth belongs to the great and only Potentate, the King of Kings. Again, the Lord, the King of manhood and the world, the second Adam, came to testify to the truth of manhood and the world, which sin and Satan had concealed. This testimony to the Truth is to be the weapon whereby His Kingdom will be spread;— ‘ every one who is of the truth,’ i.e. here in the most general sense, every one who is a true dealer with his own heart, who has an ear to hear,— ‘ of such are my subjects composed:— they hear my voice.’ But for the putting this true dealing on its proper and only ground, see ch. 8:47; 6:44. 38. To this number Pilate did not belong. He had no ear for Truth. His celebrated question is perhaps more the result of indifferentism than of scepticism; it expresses, not without scoff and irony, a conviction that truth can never be found: and is an apt representative of the state of the polite Gentile mind at the time of the Lord’ s coming. It was rather an inability than an unwillingness to find the truth. He waits for no answer, nor did the question require any. Nay, it was no real question, any more than τίἐμοὶκ . σοί , or any other, behind which a negation lies hid. ἐγὼοὐδεμ . αἰτ .… ] ἐγώ , opposed to ὑμεῖς , who had found fault in Him. Pilate mocks both— the Witness to the Truth, and the haters of the Truth. His conduct presents a pitiable specimen of the moral weakness of that spirit of worldly power, which reached its culminating point in the Roman empire. 39. At this place comes in Matthew 26:12-14;— the repeated accusation of Jesus by the chief priests and elders, to which He answered nothing;— and Luke 23:5-16, the sending to Herod, and second proclamation of His innocence by Pilate,— after which he adopts this method of procuring His release (Luke, ver. 17). ἔστινσυνήθ .] See note Matthew 27:15, and compare, for an instructive specimen of the variations in the Gospel narratives, the four accounts of this incident. 40. They have not before cried out in this narrative: so that some circumstances must be pre-supposed which are not here related: unless vv. 30 and 31 be referred to. ἦνδὲὁΒ . λ .,— in Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19, a rioter;— but doubtless also a robber, as such men are frequently found foremost in civil uproar. There is a solemn irony in these words of the Apostle— a Robber! See the contrast strongly brought out, Acts 3:14. Luthardt (after Krafft) remarks on the parallelism with Leviticus 16:5-10. Thus was Jesus “ the goat upon which the Lord’ s lot fell, to be offered for a sin-offering.” See the same idea expanded by Mr. Wratislaw, in the first of the sermons in his volume. Chap. 19:1. The reason or purpose of this scourging does not here appear; but in Luke 23:21-23 we read that after the choice of Barabbas, Pilate asked them what should be done with Jesus? And when they demanded that He should be crucified, Pilate, after another assertion of his innocence, said παιδεύσαςαὐτὸνἀπολύσω . Thus it is accounted for. 2, 3. κ . ἤρχοντοπρ . αὐτ .] This has been perhaps erased as not being understood. It was their mock-reverential approach, as to a crowned king: coming probably with obeisances and pretended homage. In the χαῖρεὁβ . τ . Ἰουδαίων , “ non tam Christum derident, quam Judæ is insultant:” Lampe. See notes on Matt. vv. 27-30;— and on πορφύραν , Mark ver. 17. 4. The unjust and cruel conduct of Pilate appears to have had for its object to satisfy the multitude by the mockery and degradation of the so-called King of the Jews: and with that view he now brings forth Jesus. His speech is equivalent to— ‘ See what I have done purely to please you— for I believe Him innocent.’ Ver. 5 is the accurate and graphic delineation of an eye-witness, and intimately connected with the speech of Pilate which follows. For the ἰδοὺὁἄνθ . is to move their contempt and pity;— ‘ See this man who submits to and has suffered these indignities— how can He ever stir up the people, or set Himself up for King? Now cease to persecute Him; your malice surely ought to be satisfied.’ 6. This had been cried before, see Matt. ver. 22 and parallels. Possibly St. John had not heard the cry. According as men have been in different parts of a mob, they will naturally report differently, according as those nearest to them cried out. λάβ . αὐτ . ὑμ .] The words of Pilate shew vacillation between his own sense of the innocence of Jesus and his fear of displeasing the Jews and their rulers. He now, but in ironical mockery, as before, ch. 18:31, delivers the matter entirely into their hands: perhaps after having received the message from his wife, Matt. ver. 19. 7. In consequence of this taunt, they now declare the cause of their condemnation of Him— see Leviticus 24:16— and their demand that, though found innocent by the governor, He should die. 8. This charge served to increase the fear which Pilate had before: see note on ch. 18:37. The name υἱὸςθεοῦ served also to confirm the omen already furnished by the dream of his wife. That this fear was not a fear of the Jews, nor of acting unjustly, but of the Person of Jesus, is evident from what follows. 9. He entered, taking Jesus with him. πόθεν — i.e. not ‘ from what province?’ — for he knew this, Luke 23:6, Luke 23:7: nor, ‘ of what parents?’ — but whence? in reference to υἱὸςθεοῦ : cf. πόθενγένοςεὔχεταιεἶναι , Hom. Od. ρ . 373. Observe that the fear of Pilate is not mere superstition, nor does it enter into the Jewish meaning of υἱὸςθ .: but arises from an indefinite impression made on him by the Person and bearing of our Lord. We must not therefore imagine any fear of Him as being a ‘ son of the gods,’ in Pilate’ s mind (so even Luthardt): this gives a wrong direction to his conduct, and misses the fine psychological truth of the narrative. Our Lord, in His silence, was acting according to His own precept, Matthew 7:6. Notwithstanding Pilate’ s fear of Him, he was not in earnest;— not determined to be led by his conscience, but had already given way to the unjust demands of the people; and He who saw his heart, knew how unworthy he was of an answer to so momentous a question. Besides, this silence was the most emphatic answer to all who had ears to hear it;— was a reference to what He had said before, ch. 18:37, and so a witness to His divine origin. Would any mere man, of true and upright character, have refused an answer to such a question, so put? Let the modern rationalist consider this. 10. As in ch. 18:35, Pilate at once recoils from his better conscience into the state-pride of office. “ Objurgans increpatio timori præ cedenti plane contraria.” Lampe. This very boast was a self-conviction of injustice. No just judge has any such power as this, to punish or to loose (see 2 Corinthians 13:8); but only patiently to enquire and give sentence according to the truth. ἐμοί , emphatic: it perhaps being implied, ‘ Thou hast, I know, refused to reply to others before.’ ἀπολῦσαι , first seems most natural, as appealing most to the prisoner: σταυρῶσαι follows, as the alternative in case the other is rejected. 11. This last testimony of our Lord before Pilate is a witness to the truth: opening in a wonderful manner the secret of Pilate’ s vaunted power, of His own humble submission, and the sinfulness of His enemies. This saying, observes Meyer, breathes truth and grace. The great stress is on the word ἄνωθεν , on which Grotius strikingly says (ungewohnlich treffend, Stier), “ inde scilicet, unde ortus sum!” so that it answers remarkably to the πόθεν above. We must not dream of any allusion to Rome, or the Sanhedrim, in this ἄνωθεν , as the sources of Pilate’ s power:— the word was not so meant, nor so understood: see ver. 12. δεδομένον , not δεδομένη :— the neuter is more general, requiring the supply, as Meyer, of τὸἐξουσιάζεινκατ ʼ ἐμοῦ ,— and embraces in itself the whole delegation from above, power included— q. d. except by appointment from above. Lampe (in loc.) remarks: “ Concedit Pilato (1) potestatem. Agnoscebat fori humani authoritatem, quia regnum ejus non erat terrenum, humanos magistratus destruens. Neque Pilato et Romanis jus in Judæ os disputabat.… (2) Exaggerat illam potestatem, ut superne datam. Hæ c est doctrina Christiana, omnem potestatem esse a Deo (Romans 13:1, Romans 13:2).… (3) Agnoscit potestatem illam se in Seipsum extendere, cum omnia secum ex decreto divino agerentur (Acts 4:28).” διὰτοῦτο ] on this account, viz. because of what has just been asserted, οὐκεἶχεςκ .τ .λ . The connexion is somewhat difficult. I take it to be this: ‘ God has given to thee power over me;— not insight into the character which I claim, that of being the son of God— but simply power: that insight belonged to others, viz. the Sanhedrim, and their president, whose office it was to judge that claim; they have judged against the clearest evidence and rejected me, the Son of God; thy sin, that of blindly exercising thy power, sin though it be, is therefore less than theirs, who being God’ s own people, and with God’ s word of prophecy before them (and the High Priest, with his own prophetic word before him,— see ch. 18:14), deliberately gave me over into thy hand.’ It is important to this, which I believe to be the only right understanding of the words, to remember that Pilate, from ver. 6, was making himself simply their tool;— He was the sinful, but at the same time the blind instrument of their deliberate malice. Nearly so Lü cke and De Wette. Bengel and Stier understand “ quia Me non nosti” as the subject of διὰτοῦτο , but Lü cke rightly says that δεδομ . ἄνωθεν , and nothing else must be that subject. So Meyer also. ὁπαραδιδ ., beyond question, Caiaphas,— to whom the initiative on the Jewish side belonged; “ cujus authoritate omnia agebantur,” Lampe. At the same time the whole Sanhedrim are probably included under the guilt of their chief. In this ἁμαρτίαν is an implied reference to a higher Judge— nay, that Judge Himself speaks. 12. ἐκτ ., from this time; so De W., Lü cke, &c.: Meyer, Stier, and Luthardt render it “ on this account;” arguing that Pilate had before been endeavouring to deliver Him: but the words imply that from this time, he entirely set himself to deliver Him. Pilate himself was deeply struck by these words of majesty and mildness, and almost sympathy for his [own] weakness, and made a last, and, as ἐκτ . seems to imply, a somewhat longer attempt than before, to deliver Him. φίλοςτ . Κ .] There does not seem to be any allusion to a title of honour, amicus Cæ saris; indeed, to judge from the citations in Wetstein, a good deal of fancy has been employed in making out the fact of such a title having been in use, any further than that the appellation would naturally arise and be accounted honourable. φίλ . τ . Κ . here is ‘ well affected to Cæ sar.’ This was a terrible saying, especially under Tiberius, with whom (Tacit. Ann. iii. 38) “ majestatis crimen omnium accusationum complementum erat.” πᾶςὁβ .… ] This was true: their application of it to Christ a lie. But words, not facts, are taken into account by tyrants, and this Pilate knew. 13. τ . λόγωντούτων — viz. these two last remarks. “ In such a perplexity, a man like Pilate could not long hesitate. As Caiaphas had before said, it were better that one even innocent man should die, than that all should perish: so now in like case Pilate decided rather to sacrifice Jesus though innocent, than to expose himself to so great danger.” Friedlieb, Arch. der Leid. § 34. ἔξω ] See on ch. 18:33. The βῆμα was in front of the præ torium, on an elevated platform;— Gabbatha, probably from ג ּ ָ ב ַ ה ּ , altus fuit,— which was paved with a tessellated pavement. Such a pavement Julius Cæ sar carried about on his expeditions, Suet. c. 46. 14. παρασκευὴτοῦπ .] The signification, ‘ Friday in the Passover week’ (using παρασκευή for ‘ day before the sabbath,’ as reff. Matt., Luke, and τοῦπ . as in σάββατοντοῦπ . Ps.-Ign. ad Philip. c. 13, p. 937, ed. Migne), has found many and some recent defenders: see especially Wieseler, Chron. Synops. i. 335 ff. But this is not its natural meaning, nor would it ever have been thought of in this place, but for the difficulty arising from the whole Passover question, which I have discussed on Matthew 26:17-19, and on ch. 18:28. παρ . τοῦπ . answers to ע ֶ ר ֶ ב ה פ ּ ֶ ס ַ ח , and is ‘ the vigil of the Passover,’ i.e. the day preceding the evening when the passover was killed. And so it must be understood here, especially when connected with ch. 18:28. See on the whole matter the notes above referred to. ὥραὡςἕκτη ] There is an insuperable difficulty as the text now stands. For Mark relates, ch. 15:25, that the crucifixion took place at the third hour: and that it certainly was so, the whole arrangement of the day testifies. For on the one hand, the judgement could hardly have taken the whole day till noon: and on the other, there will not thus be time left for the rest of the events of the day, before the sabbath began. We must certainly suppose, as did Eusebius, Theophylact, and Severus (in the Catena, Lü cke, ii. 756), that there has been some very early erratum in our copies; whether the interchange of Γ ʹ (3) and ϛ ʹ (6), or some other, cannot now be determined. Lü cke and Friedlieb defend the sixth hour: but the above difficulties seem to me decisive against it. We certainly may approximate the two accounts by recollecting that as the crucifixion itself certainly did not (as in Mark) take place exactly at the third hour, and as here it is ὥραὡςἕκτη , some intermediate time may be described by both Evangelists. But this is not satisfactory: see note on Mark 15:25. The solution given by Bp. Wordsworth after Townson and others, that St. John’ s reckoning of the hours is different, and like our own, so that the sixth hour = 6 a.m., besides being unsupported by any authority (see ch. 1:39; 4:6, 52; 11:9, and notes), would leave here the difficulty that there must thus elapse three hours between the hearing before Pilate and the Crucifixion. Besides which, we may ask, is it possible to imagine St. John, with the other Gospels before him as these expositors believe him to have had, adopting without notice an independent reckoning of his own which would introduce utter confusion into that history which (again on their hypothesis) he wrote his Gospel to complete and clear up? The words ἴδεὁβασ . ὑμ . seem to have been spoken in irony to the Jews— in the same spirit in which afterwards the title was written over the cross:— partly perhaps also, as in that case, in consequence of the saying in ver. 12,— to sever himself altogether from the suspicion there cast on him. 15. οὐκἔχ . βασ . εἰμὴΚ .,— a degrading confession from the chief priests of that people of whom it was said, “ The Lord your God is your King.” 1 Samuel 12:12. “ Jesum negant usque eo, ut omnino Christum negent,” Bengel. However, it furthered the present purpose, and to this all was sacrificed, including truth itself; for the confession was not only degrading, but false in their mouths. Some of those who now cried this, died miserably in rebellion against Cæ sar forty years afterwards. 16. Here the scourging seems (Matt., Mark) to have taken place, or perhaps to have been renewed, since the former one was not that customary before execution, but conceded by Pilate to the mob in hope of satisfying them. 16 b-42. Jesus surrenders himself to death. Matthew 27:31-61.Mark 15:20-47 Mark 15:20-47. Luke 23:26-56. Compare the notes on the four throughout. 16. παρέλ ., viz. the chief priests. 17-22. His Crucifixion. 17. See on Matt. ver. 33. αὐτῷ is dat. commodi: ‘ carrying the cross for himself.’ 19. Matt., ver. 37. 20-22. The same spirit of mockery of the Jews shewed itself in the title, as before, ver. 14. They had prevailed on Pilate by urging this point, that Jesus had set Himself up for a king; and Pilate is willing to remind them of it by these taunts. Hence their complaint and his answer. The Latin was the official language, the Greek that usually spoken,— the Hebrew (i.e. Aramaic) that of the common people. ὃγέγ . γέγ .] The first perfect denotes the past action; the second that it was complete and unalterable. 23-30. His death. 23, 24. οὖν goes back to ver. 18. There were four soldiers, a τετράδιον , Acts 12:4, and a centurion?— “ centurio supplicio præ positus,” Seneca de Ira, 16 (Friedlieb). The garments of the executed were by law the perquisite of the soldiers on duty. Dig. xlviii. 20. 6 (Friedlieb). The tunic was the so-called ‘ toga ocellata,’ or ‘ byssina.’ It reached from the neck to the feet, and was fastened round the throat with a clasp. It was properly a priest’ s garment (see Jos. Antt. iii. 7. 4), and was woven of linen, or perhaps of wool (Friedlieb). The citation is verbatim from the LXX. In it, ἱμάτια = the upper garments, ἱματισμός the tunic. Again, beware of any evasion of ἵνα . 25. In Matthew 27:55, 56 , we learn that two of these were looking on afar off, after Jesus had expired, with Salome. Considering then that John’ s habit of not naming himself, might extend to his mother (he names his father, ch. 21:2), we may well believe that ἡἀδελφὴτ . μητρὸςαὐτοῦ here represents Salome, and that four women are designated by this description. So Wieseler and Meyer, Luthardt opposing them. So also Ewald: and, which is no mean evidence, the Peschito, inserting a καί between αὐτοῦ and Μαρία . ἡτοῦκλωπᾶ , wife of Klopas (Alphæ us, see Matthew 10:3, and Prolegg. to Ep. of James, § i. 4), the mother of James the Less and Joses: Matt., Mark. 26. ἰδὲὁυἱόςσου ] The relationship in the flesh between the Lord and His mother was about to close; hence He commends her to another son who should care for and protect her. Thus,— as at the marriage in Cana, when His official independence of her was to be testified, so now,— He addresses her as γύναι . 27. The solemn and affecting commendation of her to John is doubly made,— and thus bound by the strongest injunctions on both. 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. The converse is true: He did solemnly commend the care of her, especially indeed to the beloved disciple, but in him to the whole cycle of disciples, among whom we find her, Acts 1:14. No certain conclusion can be drawn from this commendation, as to the ‘ brethren of the Lord’ believing on Him or not at this time. The reasons which influenced Him in his selection must ever be far beyond our penetration:— and whatever relations to Him we suppose those brethren to have been, it will remain equally mysterious why He passed them over, who were so closely connected with His mother. Still the presumption, that they did not then believe on Him, is one of which it is not easy to divest one’ s self; and at least may enter as an element into the consideration of the whole subject, beset as it is with uncertainty. ἀπ ʼ ἐκ . τ . ὥρας is probably to be taken literally,— from that time;— so that she was spared the pangs of witnessing what was to follow. If so, John returned again to the Cross, ver. 35. εἰςτὰἴδια need not imply that John had a house in Jerusalem. It would equally apply to his lodging during the feast; only meaning, that henceforth, wherever he was, she was an inmate with him; and certainly that his usual habitation was fixed, and was his own. Ewald remarks (see Meyer in loc.), “ It was for the Apostle in his later years a sweet reward to recall vividly every such minute detail,— and for his readers a sign that he alone could have written all this.” 28. μετὰτοῦτο is generally, but not necessarily, immediate. Here we must suppose the ἐλωῒἐλωΐ to have been said meantime, and the three hours’ darkness to have taken place. Perhaps during some of this time John was absent: see above. ἵνατελ . ἡγρ .] Various needless objections have been raised to the application of these words to the saying of the Lord which follows, and attempts have been made (by Luthardt and Meyer among others: see on the other hand Ewald) to connect them with τετέλεσται . That St. John does use ἵνα … as applying to what follows, ch. 14:31 shews. And so here,— ‘ that the Scripture might be accomplished’ ,— having it in view to leave no pre-appointed particular of the circumstances of his suffering unfulfilled, Jesus, speaking doubtless also in intense present agony of thirst, but only speaking because He so willed it, and because it was an ordained part of the course which He had taken upon Him, said this word. “ Nec hoc levamentum petiisset, nisi scivisset id quoque ad κριτήρια Messiæ secundum Prophetas spectare. Unde hæ c altera motiva additur: ut consummaretur Scriptura.” Lampe in loc. 29. The ὄξος was the posca, the sour wine, or vinegar and water, the common drink of the Roman soldiers. ὑσσώπῳ — an aromatic plant growing on walls, common in the south of England and on the Continent, with blue or white flowers, and having stalks about 1½ foot long, which would in this case be long enough, the feet of the crucified person not being ordinarily raised above that distance from the ground. It was much used for sprinkling, Exodus 12:22: Leviticus 14:4 &c.: Psalms 51:7. 30. τετέλεσται expresses the fulfilling of that appointed course of humiliation, obedience, and suffering, which the Lord Jesus had undertaken. (“ Verbum τελέω convenit rebus, τελειόω scripturæ sacræ ,” Bengel.) That was now over,— the redemption of man accomplished,— and from this time “ the joy that was set before Him” begins. It is beyond the purpose of a note to bring out the many meanings of this most important and glorious word. There is an admirable sermon on it by Schleiermacher (vol. ii. serm. 10); and Stier’ s Comment, vi. 473 ff., should be read. κλίναςτ . κεφαλήν ] We have the minuteness of an eye-witness, on whom every particular of this solemn moment made an indelible impression. παρέδωκεντὸπνεῦμα — viz. in the words given by Luke, πάτερ , εἰςχεῖράςσουπαρατίθεμαιτὸπνεῦμα ,— which was also the φωνὴμεγάλη of Matt. and Mark. This παραδιδόναι was strictly a voluntary and determinate act— no coming on of death, which had no power over Him,— see ch. 10:18, and note on Luke 23:46. 31-42. Jesus in Death: and herein, 31-37. Proof of His Death. 31. On the Jewish custom, see note, Matthew 27:57. ἦγὰρμεγ .… , being as it was (see note on ch. 18:28, and Matthew 26:17) a double sabbath: the coincidence of the first day of unleavened bread (Exodus 12:16) with an ordinary sabbath. ἵνακατεαγ .] The crurifragium was sometimes appended to the punishment of crucifixion, see Friedlieb, p. 164,— but does not appear to have been inflicted for the purpose of causing death, which indeed it would not do. Friedlieb supposes that the term involved in it the ‘ coup de grâ ce,’ which was given to all executed criminals, and that the piercing with the spear was this death-blow, and was also inflicted on the thieves. 34. The lance must have penetrated deep, for the object was to ensure death,— and, see ch. 20:27, probably into the left side, on account of the position of the soldier, and of what followed. αἷμακ . ὕδωρ ] The spear perhaps pierced the pericardium or envelope of the heart, in which case a liquid answering the description of ὕδωρ may have flowed with the blood. But the quantity would be so small as scarcely to have been observed. It is hardly possible that the separation of the blood into placenta and serum should so soon have taken place, or that, if it had, it should have been by an observer described as αἷμακαὶὕδωρ . It is more probable that the fact, which is here so strongly testified, was a consequence of the extreme exhaustion of the Body of the Redeemer. The medical opinions on the point are very various, and by no means satisfactory. Meyer’ s note is well worth consulting. His view after all seems to be the safe and true one— that the circumstance is related as a miraculous sign, having deep significance as to the work of the Redeemer, and shewing Him to be more than mortal. It can be no reason against this, that, as Ewald urges, St. John does not here dwell on any such typical significance, nor can I see how, as he maintains, 1 John 5:6 ff. can be understood without reference to this fact: see note there. 35. This emphatic affirmation of the fact seems to regard rather the whole incident than the mere outflowing of the blood and water. It was the object of John to shew that the Lord’ s Body was a real body, and underwent real death. And both these were shewn by what took place: not so much by the phæ nomenon of the water and blood, as by the infliction of such a wound,— after which, even had not death taken place before, there could not by any possibility be life remaining. So Lü cke: except that he seems to refer ἑωρακώς more to the whole circumstances of the death of Jesus. The third person gives solemnity. [It is, besides, in accordance with St. John’ s way of speaking of himself throughout the Gospel.] Meyer is for keeping ἀληθινή here to its strict sense, not true, but genuine, real. Perhaps the best account to be given of the word is to be found in the use of ἀληθῆ immediately afterwards of the matter of the testimony. The things related are ἀληθῆ : the narrative of them is ἀληθινή , a narrative of truth. Some have fancied that by the use of ἐκεῖνος here, the narrator necessarily signifies not himself, but some third person. But it has been shewn above (see note on ch. 7:29) that St. John constantly uses ἐκεῖνος merely as emphatically taking up again the main subject of the sentence. The use of πιστεύειν in John makes it probable that he lays the weight on the proof of the reality of the death, as above. The ἵνα depends on the three preceding clauses, without any parenthesis, as the final aim of what has gone before: in order that; not, ‘ so that.’ 36. ‘ For’ — i.e. as connected with the true Messiahship of Christ, ‘ these things were a fulfilment of Scripture.’ It is possible that Psalms 33:20 (LXX) may be also referred to;— but no doubt the primary reference is to the Paschal Lamb of Exod., as in reff.: see 1 Corinthians 5:7. 37. LXX, ἐπιβλέψονταιπρόςμε , ἀνθ ʼ ὧνκατωρχήσαντο — but the Evangelist has given the literal and, as now acknowledged (Lü cke), true sense of the word ד ּ ָ ק ַ ר . The ὄψονται does not refer to the Roman soldiers,— but to the repentant in the world, who, at the time the Gospel was written, had begun to fulfil the prophecy: and is not without a prophetic reference to the future conversion of Israel, who were here the real piercers, though the act was done διὰχειρὸςἀνόμων . 38-42. His Burial. 38. μετὰταῦτα — not, ‘ immediately after this’ — but ‘ soon after.’ The narrative implies, though it does not mention (as Mark and Luke do), that Joseph himself took down the Body from the cross. Lü cke thinks the soldiers would have done this: but their duty seems only to have extended to the ascertaining of the fact of death. The ἀρθῶσιν of ver. 31 need not imply, ‘ by their hands.’ It was customary to grant the bodies of executed persons to their friends. “ Percussos sepeliri carnifex non vetat,” Quintil. Declam. vi. On Joseph, and the other particulars, see notes on Matt. ἦλθεν — to Golgotha. 39. John alone mentions Nicodemus. The Galilæ an narrative had no previous trace of him, and does not recognize him here. Joseph bore too prominent a part not to be mentioned by all. Luthardt beautifully remarks on the contrast between these men’ s secret and timid discipleship before, and their courage now, “ Their love to Jesus was called out by the might of His love. His Death is the Power which constrains men. And thus this act of love on the part of both these men is a testimony for Jesus, and for the future effect of His death. Hence also it appears why the Evangelist mentions the weight of the spices, as a proof of the greatness of their love, as Lampe observes.” σμύρνης , myrrh,— the gum of an aromatic plant, not indigenous in Palestine, but in Arabia Felix, see reff. and Exodus 30:23: Proverbs 7:17 (Hebr. and E. V.): Son 3:6, and Winer, Real-wö rterbuch, ii. 126 (edn. 3). ἀλόης , the name of various sorts of aromatic wood in the East,— see Winer, Realw. i. 54. Both materials appear to have been pulverized (the wood by scraping or burning?) and strewed in the folds of the linen in which the body was wrapped (De Wette). The quantity is large; but perhaps the whole Body was encased, after the wrapping, in the mixture, and an outer wrapper fastened over all. The proceeding was hurried, on account of the approaching Sabbath: and apparently an understanding entered into with the women, that it should be more completely done after the Sabbath was over. This plentiful application of the aromatic substances may therefore have been made with an intention to prevent the Body, in its lacerated state, from incipient decomposition during the interval. 40. See ch. 11:44. Little is known with any certainty, except from these passages, of the Jews’ ordinary manner of burying. Winer, Friedlieb. 41. See note on Matt. ver. 60. The words ἐντῷτόπῳὅπουἐσταυρώθη are so far in favour of the traditional site of the Holy Sepulchre, that Calvary and the Sepulchre are close together, under the roof of the same church. And those who have found an objection in that circumstance have forgotten this testimony of John. καινὸν … , and therefore given for the purpose— so that the additional particular not here mentioned, that it belonged to Joseph, is almost implied. The newness of the tomb was important, that it should be seen “ neminem præ ter Jesum, neque Jesum alterius virtute, ut olim circa sepulchrum Elisæ i acciderat, resurrexisse” (Lampe): so that (Luthardt) no room might be left for the evasions of unbelief. 42. τὴνπαρασκ . τ . Ἰουδ . seems to indicate clearly the παρασκ . of the Passover, as I have before maintained that the words mean; not the mere day of the week so called, which, as it was by the Christians also in the Apostles’ time named παρασκευή , would not be qualified by τῶνἸουδ . The words ὅτιἐγγ . ἦντὸμν . certainly at first sight appear as if John were not aware that the tomb belonged to Joseph; but it is more likely that the thought of asking for the body may have been originally suggested to Joseph by his possessing a tomb close to the place of crucifixion, and so ὅτιἐγγ . ἦντὸμν . may have been the real original reason of the whole proceeding: and John, not anxious to record every particular, may have given it as such. Chap. 20:1-29. Jesus alive from the dead. Completion of the disciples’ faith wrought thereby. And herein, 1-18] Contrast between His former life, within the conditions of the flesh, and His present, in which His communion with His own partakes of His new relation to the Father. Compare Matthew 28:1: Mark 16:1: Luke 24:1. On the chronology of the events of the Resurrection, see note on Matthew 28:1. I attempt no harmony of the accounts:— I believe all such attempts to be fruitless;— and I see in their failure strong corroboration of the truth of the evangelic narratives. It is quite impossible that so astounding an event, coming upon various portions of the body of disciples from various quarters and in various forms, should not have been related, by four independent witnesses, in the scattered and fragmentary way in which we now find it. In the depth beneath this varied surface of narration rests the great central fact of the Resurrection itself, unmoved and immoveable. As it was this above all other things to which the Apostles bore their testimony, so, in their testimony to this, we have the most remarkable proof of each having faithfully elaborated into narrative those particular facts which came under his own eye or were reported to himself by those concerned. Hence the great diversity in this portion of the narrative:— and hence I believe much that is now dark might be explained, were the facts themselves, in their order of occurrence, before us. Till that is the case, (and I am willing to believe that it will be one of our delightful employments hereafter, to trace the true harmony of the Holy Gospels, under His teaching of whom they are the record,) we must be content to walk by faith, and not by sight. We must also remember in this case, that our Evangelist is selecting his points of narration with a special purpose,— to shew us how the belief of the disciples was brought out and completed, after the unbelief of Israel: cf. vv. 30, 31. 1, 2. Μαρ . ἡΜαγδ .] She was not alone (Matt., Mark, Luke). Does this appear in the οἴδαμεν below? This is not, as Meyer says, precluded by the οἶδα in ver. 13. Mary there speaks in her own person, which she might do however accompanied. Still, probably not. She uses the plural as involving all the disciples in her own feeling of ignorance and of consequent sorrow. So Meyer: and it is more natural to take it thus. One thing we may conclude for certain, that she, for some reason, did not see the vision related in Matt., Mark, and Luke. 3. Luke, ver. 12, speaks only of Peter’ s going. Meyer directs attention to the interchange of aorists and graphic imperfects in this and the following verse. 4-8. Full of most interesting and characteristic detail. John, probably the younger, outruns Peter;— but when there, reverently (not “ ne pollueretur,” as .) abstains from entering the sepulchre. The ardent and impetuous Peter goes directly in— John follows— and believes. What can exceed the inner truth of this description? And what is not related, is as full of truth as that which is. For, vv. 6, 7, we seem to hear the very voice of Peter describing to his companion the inner state of the tomb. On σουδ . see reff. Notice βλέπει , of the cursory glance of John, who did not go in,— θεωρεῖ , of the exhaustive gaze of Peter who did. Notice also that John when he stooped and looked in saw only the ὀθόνια , which seem to have been lying where the Feet were, nearer the entrance, whereas Peter, on going in, saw the σουδάριον which was perhaps deposited further in, near the place of the Head. Nor should, as Meyer observes, the minute distinction of κείμενατὰὀθόνια in ver. 5 and τὰὀθόνιακείμενα in ver. 6, be altogether overlooked. 8. ἐπίστευσεν ] Nothing is said of Peter— did he believe too? I think not;— and that John modestly suppresses it. But what did John believe? Was it merely, “ corpus fuisse translatum, ut dixerat Maria?” (Bengel, so August., Erasm., Grot., Stier, Ebrard.) Surely not; the facts which he saw would prevent this conclusion: nor does John so use the word πιστεύειν . He believed that Jesus was risen from the dead. He received into his mind, embraced with his assent, the fact of the resurrection, for the first time. He did this, on the ocular testimony before him; for as yet neither of them knew the Scripture, so as to be à priori convinced of the certainty that it would be so. But (see above) Peter does not seem to have as yet received this fact;— accounting probably for what he saw as Mary had done. Lampe beautifully says “ Concludimus, ab hoc momento in ipsis monumenti tenebris animum Joannis fide salvifica resurrectionis Jesu, tanquam novo quodam orti solis justitiæ radio, collustratum fuisse.” 10. Luke has the very same expression, ἀπῆλθενπρὸςἑαυτόν . This is remarkable, as he evidently has a fragment of the same incident. πρὸςἑαυτ ., to their lodging. 11. She had come with them, but more slowly. εἱστήκει , was standing, strictly imperfect: not ‘ had been standing.’ 12. From what has been said above, my readers will not expect me to compare the angelic appearances in the four Gospels. What wonder, if the heavenly hosts were variously and often visible on this great day, when “ the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” What can be more accurate in detail than this description of the vision of Mary? Every word was no doubt carefully related to the Apostle, and as carefully recorded. And all is significant: they are in white, because from the world of light: they sit, as not defending, but peacefully watching the Body: at the Head and the Feet, for the Body of the Lord was from head to foot in the charge of His Father and of His servants. (Luthardt.) 13. Here again the finest psychological truth underlies the narrative. The other women (Mark, ver. 5: Luke, ver. 5) were afraid at the vision; but now Mary, having but one thought or desire, to recover the lost Body of her Lord , feels no fear. The angels doubtless are proceeding further to assure her as they did the women before:— but this is broken off by the appearance of the Lord Himself, or perhaps by Mary’ s turning away. 14. ἐστράφη — having her attention attracted by the consciousness of some one [being] present near her— not perhaps by the approach of Jesus. Or it might be (Stier, Ebrard) with intent to go forth and weep again, or further to seek her Lord. Chrysostom’ s reason is very beautiful, but perhaps hardly probable: καὶποίααὕτηἀκολουθία , πρὸςἐκείνουςδιαλεγομένην , καὶμηδέπωμηδὲνἀκούσασανπαρ ʼ αὐτῶν , στραφῆναιπρὸςτὰὀπίσω ; ἐμοὶδοκεῖταῦταλεγούσηςαὐτῆς , ἄφνωφανεὶςὁχριστὸςὄπισθεναὐτῆςἐκπλῆξαιτοὺςἀγγέλους , κἀκείνουςθεασαμένουςτὸνδεσπότην , καὶτῷσχήματι , καὶτῷβλέμματι , καὶτῷκινήματιεὐθέωςἐμφῆναι , ὅτιτὸνκύριονεἶδον · καὶτοῦτοτὴνγυναῖκαἐπέστρεψε , καὶεἰςτὰὀπίσωστραφῆναιἐποίησεν . Homil. in Joann. lxxxvi. 1. We need not surely enquire too minutely, why she did not know Him. The fact may be psychologically accounted for— she did not expect Him to be there, and was wholly preoccupied with other thoughts: or, as Drä seke (cited by Stier, vii. 12, edn. 2) says, “ Her tears wove a veil, which concealed Him who stood before her. The seeking after the Dead prevents us from seeing the Living.” 15. The same kind of repetition by the Lord of what the angel had before said is found in Matthew 28:7-10. It is idle to enquire why she thought Him to be the gardener (see specimens of such speculations in Lü cke and Stier in loc.): but I may once for all observe that we must believe the clothing of His risen Body to have been that which He pleased to assume; not earthly clothing, but perhaps some semblance of it. Certainly, in this case, He was clothed;— or she must at once have recognized Him. But see on στραφεῖσα below. κύριε , the appellation of courtesy to an unknown person. σύ , emphatic. κἀγὼαὐτ . ἀρῶ ] She forgets her lack of strength for this, in the overbearing force of her love. (Meyer.) 16. With one word, and that one word her name, the Lord awakens all the consciousness of His presence: calling her in that tone doubtless in which her soul had been so often summoned to receive divine knowledge and precious comfort. στραφεῖσα seems to imply that she had not been looking full at Him before. ῥαββουνί ] See ref.: ר ֵ ב ּ ו ֹ נ ִ י , either my Master,— or only Master, the י being merely paragogic; which last appears to be the case here. That she gives way to no impassioned exclamations, but pours out her satisfaction and joy in this one word, is also according to the deepest psychological truth. The addition of καιπροσέδραμενἅψασθαιαὐτοῦ (see digest: so also, but with προέδραμεν , the cursives 13, 346) is an explanatory gloss to μήμουἅπτου — but doubtless a correct one. “ It was the former name with which He called her: His former appellation in which she replied; and now she seeks to renew the former intercourse.” (Luthardt.) 17. The connexion between the prohibition and its reason is difficult, and has been very variously given. See a complete discussion of the exegetical literature of the passage in Stier, vi. 640-667. The sense seems to me to be connected with some gesture of the nature alluded to in the gloss above quoted, but indicating that she believed she had now gotten him again, never to be parted from Him. This gesture He reproves as unsuited to the time, and the nature of His present appearance. ‘ Do not thus— for I am not yet restored finally to you in the body— I have yet to ascend to the Father.’ This implies in the background another and truer touching, when He should have ascended to the Father. “ Vis me tangere, Maria; vis omnino frui amicitia mea: id nunc non licet, quum tantum οἰκονομικῶς , ad fidem vestram roborandam me do conspiciendum. At ubi ad Patrem ascendero, veniet tempus quum frui mea amicitia perfectissime poteris, non terrestri contactu, sed tali qui loco illi, i.e. cœ lo conveniat, spirituali.” Grotius. With this my view nearly agrees, not confining (as indeed neither does he) the latter enjoyment to in cœ lo, but understanding it to have begun here below. So Leo the Great, Serm. lxxiv. (. lxxii.) 4, p. 295: “ Hinc illud est quod post resurrectionem suam Dominus Mariæ Magdalenæ personam Ecclesiæ gerenti cum ad contactum ipsius properaret accedere dicit; Noli me tangere, nondum enim ascendi ad Patrem meum: hoc est, nolo ut ad me corporaliter venias, nec ut me sensu carnis agnoscas: ad sublimiora te differo, majora tibi præ paro: cum ad Patrem ascendero, tunc me perfectius veriusque palpabis, apprehensura quod non tangis, et creditura quod non cernis.” The two renderings of ἅπτου to be guarded against are, (1) a laying hold of to retain , (2) a laying hold of to worship (ἐκράτησαναὐτοῦτοὺςπόδας Matthew 28:9). Neither of these senses can be extracted from the word without forcing. πορεύουδέ ] Stier remarks that this was a far greater honour than that which had been forbidden her;— just as the handling of the Lord allowed to Thomas was a far less thing than the not seeing and yet believing. τοὺςἀδελφ . μου ] By this term He testifies that He has not put off his humanity, nor his love for his own, in his resurrection state: see Hebrews 2:11. πατ . μουκ . πατ . ὑμῶν ] This distinction, μουκ . ὑμῶν , when ἡμῶν seems so likely to have been said, has been observed by all Commentators of any depth, as indicating an essential difference in the relations. (Stier),— ἄλλωςἐμοῦ , κατὰφύσιν · ἄλλωςὑμῶν , κατὰθέσιν . :— “ Non ait, Patrem nostrum; aliter ergo meum, aliter vestrum; natura meum, gratia vestrum. Et, Deum meum et Deum vestrum. Neque hic dixit Deum nostrum; ergo et hic aliter meum, aliter vestrum. Deum meum, sub quo et Ego sum homo; Deum vestrum, inter quos et Ipsum Mediator sum.” Tract. cxxi.3. The μου is the ground and source of the ὑμῶν ,— therefore the Lord so speaks. Stier, vii. 32, edn. 2. “ Nos, per Illum: Ille, singularissime et primo.” Bengel. But the θεόνμου indicates that He is still man: cf. Ephesians 1:3 and passim: 1 Corinthians 3:23: and especially Hebrews 2:11. In the ἀναβαίνω is included His temporary stay which He was now making with them— I am ascending— q. d. ‘ I am on my way.’ 19-23. In the freedom of His spiritual and triumphant life, He appears to and commissions His own. Compare Luke 24:36-49: Mark 16:14-18. 19. The circumstance of the doors being shut is mentioned here and in ver. 26, to indicate what sort of appearances these were. Suddenly, unaccounted for by any approach,— the Lord rendered Himself visible to His disciples. Nor did this affect the truth of that resurrection Body, any more than his withdrawing himself from mortal sight occasionally affected the truth of His fleshly Body. Both were done by that supernatural power dwelling in Him, by which His other miracles were wrought. It seems to have been the normal condition of His fleshly Body, to be visible to mortal eyes:— of His risen Body, not to be. But both these He could suspend when He pleased, without affecting the substance or truth of either. διὰτ . φόβ . τ . Ἰουδ .] This was natural enough;— the bitter hatred of the Jews (both people and rulers) to their Master,— and his own prophetic announcements,— would raise in them a dread of incipient persecution, now that He was removed. ἦλθεν — not, by ordinary approach; nor, through the closed doors;— nor in any visible manner;— but (subjectively, of Himself) the word describes that unseen arrival among them which preceded His becoming visible to them. ἔστηεἰςτ . μ .] Compare Luke, ver. 36, ἔστηἐνμέσῳ . The εἰς , as in ch. 21:4, denotes the coming, and standing, in one— the standing without motion thither, which in ordinary cases would be standing as the result of motion thither;— so that in this case ἔστη itself is the verb of motion. εἰρ . ὑμ .] See on Luke ver. 36, and ch. 14:27. Ver. 20 answers to Luke, ver. 39. ἐχάρησαν ] The first and partial fulfilment of ch. 16:20-22: see notes there. The disciples seem to have handled Him: see Luke, ver. 39: 1 John 1:1, and below, ver. 25. 21. ‘ Peace be unto you’ is solemnly repeated, as the introduction of the sending which follows. The ministers and disciples of the Lord are messengers of peace. This view is more natural than that of : ὑπὸπολλῆςχαρᾶςὡςεἰκὸςθορυβοῦνταςκαταστέλλει , ἵναπροσέχωσινοἷςμέλλειἐρεῖν . καθώς ] He confirms and grounds their Apostleship on the present glorification of Himself, whose Apostleship (Hebrews 3:1) on earth was now ended, but was to be continued by this sending forth of them. This commission was not now first given them, but now first fully assured to them: and their sending forth by Him their glorified Head, was to be, in character and process, like that of Himself by the Father. 22. To understand this verse as the outpouring of the Spirit, the fulfilment of the promise of the Comforter, is against all consistency, and most against John himself: see ch. 16:7, and ch. 7:39. To understand it rightly, we have merely to recur to that great key to the meaning of so many dark passages of Scripture, the manifold and gradual unfolding of promise and prophecy in their fulfilment. The presence of the Lord among them now was a slight and temporary fulfilment of His promise of returning to them; and so the imparting of the Spirit now, was a symbol and foretaste of that which they should receive at Pentecost:— just as, to mount a step higher, that itself, in its present abiding with us, is but the first-fruits and pledge (Romans 8:23: 2 Corinthians 1:22) of the fulness which we shall hereafter inherit. “ The relation of this saying to the effusion of the Spirit is the same which chap. 3 bears to Baptism, chap. 6 to the Lord’ s Supper, chap. 17:1 to the Ascension, &c.” (Luthardt.) Further: this giving of the Spirit was not the Spirit’ s personal imparting of Himself to them, but only a partial instilling of His influence. He proceeds forth in His work (as in His essence) from the Father and the Son: this breathing of His influence was an imparting of Him from the Son in His risen Body, but that Body had not yet been received up, without which union of the God-manhood of the Son to the glory of the Father the Holy Spirit would not come. What was now conferred is plain from our ver. 23— by which authority to discern spirits and pronounce on them is re-assured (see Matthew 18:18)— and from Luke, ver. 45, by which a discerning of the mind of the Spirit is given to them. We find instances of both these gifts being exercised by Peter in Act_1, in his assertion of the sense of Scripture, and his judgment of Judas. Both these however were only temporary and imperfect. That no formal gifts of Apostleship were now formally conferred, is plain by the absence of Thomas, who in that case would be no apostle in the same sense in which the rest were. ἐνεφύσησεν (see reff.) was the word expressing the act of God in the original infusion of the spirit of life into man. This act is now by God incarnate repeated, sacramentally , representing the infusion of the new life, of which He is become by His glorified Humanity the source to his members: see Job 33:4: Psalms 33:6: 1 Corinthians 15:45. 23. The present meaning of these words has been spoken of above. They reach forward however beyond that, and extend the grant which they re-assure to all ages of the Church. The words, closely considered, amount to this: that with the gift and real participation of the Holy Spirit, comes the conviction, and therefore the knowledge, of sin, of righteousness, and judgment;— and this knowledge becomes more perfect, the more men are filled with the Holy Ghost. Since this is so, they who are pre-eminently filled with His presence are pre-eminently gifted with the discernment of sin and repentance in others, and hence by the Lord’ s appointment authorized to pronounce pardon of sin and the contrary. The Apostles had this in an especial manner, and by the full indwelling of the Spirit were enabled to discern the hearts of men, and to give sentence on that discernment: see Acts 5:1-11; Acts 8:21; Acts 13:9. And this gift belongs to the Church in all ages, and especially to those who by legitimate appointment are set to minister in the Churches of Christ: not by successive delegation from the Apostles,— of which fiction I find in the N.T. no trace,— but by their mission from Christ, the Bestower of the Spirit for their office, when orderly and legitimately conferred upon them by the various Churches. Not however to them exclusively,— though for decency and order it is expedient that the outward and formal declaration should be so:— but in proportion as any disciple shall have been filled with the Holy Spirit of wisdom, is the inner discernment, the κρίσις , his. κρατεῖν here (see ref.) corresponds to δέειν in Matthew 16:19 (see the distinction there); 18:18, ἀφιέναι to λύειν . 24-29. He proves Himself to His own to be Lord and God, to be believed on by them, though not seen. Thomas’ s doubt, and its removal.— Peculiar to John. 24. οὐκἦν — for what reason does not appear. Euthym. says, εἰκὸςγὰραὐτὸνμετὰτὸδιασκορπισθῆναιτοὺςμαθητάς , … μήπωσυνελθεῖναὐτοῖς . I incline, with Stier (vii. 117, edn. 2), to think that it could not have been accidentally (Lü cke), nor “ negotio aliquo occupatus” (Grot.). On such a day, and in such a man, such an absence must have been designed. Perhaps he had abandoned hope;— the strong evidence of his senses having finally convinced him that the pierced side and wounded hands betokened such a death that revivification was impossible. 25. He probably does not name the Feet, merely because the Hands and Side would more naturally offer themselves to his examination than the Feet, to which he must stoop. He requires no more than had been granted to the rest: but he had their testimony in addition, and therefore ample ground for faith to rest on. Olshausen calls him the “ Rationalist among the Apostles.” Meyer lays some stress on τόπον being used (see var. readd.) instead of τύπον in the second place: “ τύπος videtur, τόπος impletur,” Grot.;— he would see the τύπος , but place his finger in the τόπος . Valeat quantum: but meantime the authority is but weak, and the mistake so obvious, that we can hardly with any safety adopt τόπον . 26. There is not the least reason for supposing, with Olshausen, that this appearance was in Galilee. The whole narrative points out the same place as before. The eight days’ interval is the first testimony of the recurring day of the Resurrection being commemorated by the disciples:— but, it must be owned, a weak one;— for in all probability they had been thus assembled every day during the interval. It forms however an interesting opening of the history of the Lord’ s Day, that the Lord Himself should have thus selected and honoured it. 27. Our Lord says nothing of the τύποςτῶνἥλων — He does not recall the malice of his enemies. The words imply that the marks were no scars, but the veritable wounds themselves;— that in His side being large enough for a hand to be thrust into it. This of itself would shew that the resurrection Body was bloodless. It is φέρεκ . ἴδε in the case of the hands, which were exposed— but merely φέρεκ . βάλε in the case of the side, which was clothed. So Meyer: but query? μὴγ . ἄπιστ ., not merely, ‘ Do not any longer disbelieve in my Resurrection;’ — but Be not (do not become)— as applied generally to the spiritual life, and the reception of God’ s truth— faithless, but believing. The E. V. is excellent. That Thomas did not apply his finger or his hand, is evident from ὅτιἑώρακάςμε below. 28. The Socinian view, that these words, ὁκύρ . μουκ . ὁθεόςμου , are merely an exclamation, is refuted— (1) By the fact that no such exclamations were in use among the Jews. (2) By the εἶπεναὐτῷ . (3) By the impossibility of referring ὁκύριόςμου to another than Jesus: see ver. 13. (4) By the N.T. usage of expressing the vocative by the nom. with an article. (5) By the utter psychological absurdity of such a supposition: that one just convinced of the presence of Him whom he deeply loved, should, instead of addressing Him, break out into an irrelevant cry. (6) By the further absurdity of supposing that if such were the case, the Apostle John, who of all the sacred writers most constantly keeps in mind the object for which he is writing, should have recorded any thing so beside that object. (7) By the intimate conjunction of πεπίστευκας — see below. Dismissing it therefore, we observe that this is the highest confession of faith which has yet been made;— and that it shews that (though not yet fully) the meaning of the previous confessions of His being ‘ the Son of God’ was understood. Thus John, in the very close of his Gospel (see on vv. 30, 31) iterates the testimony with which he began it— to the Godhead of the Word who became flesh: and by this closing confession, shews how the testimony of Jesus to Himself had gradually deepened and exalted the Apostles’ conviction, from the time when they knew Him only as ὁυἱὸςτοῦἸωσήφ (ch. 1:46), till now when He is acknowledged as their Lord and their God. 29. The ὅτιἑώρ . blames the slowness and required ground of the faith: the πεπίστευκας recognizes and commends the soundness of that faith just confessed. Meyer remarks on the perf. πεπίστευκας , “ thou hast become believing and now believest,” and the aorr. ἰδόντες and πιστεύσαντες , which are not usitative (an usage never occurring in the N.T.), but indicate the state of those described from the time of the μακαριότης predicated of them, “ who never saw, and yet became believers.” The aorists, as often in such sentences (see a remarkable coincidence Luke 1:45), indicate the present state of those spoken of, grounded in the past. Wonderful indeed, and rich in blessing for us who have not seen Him, is this, the closing word of the Gospel. For these words cannot apply to the remaining Ten: they, like Thomas, had seen and believed. “ All the appearances of the forty days,” says Stier (vii. 139, edn. 2), “ were mere preparations for the believing without seeing.” On the record of them, we now believe: see 1 Peter 1:8. 30, 31. Formal close of the Gospel (see notes on ch. 21.). 30. μὲνοὖν — yea, and,— or, moreover: meaning, ‘ This book must not be supposed to be a complete account.’ καί , and indeed:— many and other signs. σημεῖα , not, as Theophyl., Euthym., Lü cke, Olsh., “ proofs of His resurrection,” — but, as ch. 12:37 and elsewhere in this Gospel, miracles in the most general sense— these after the Resurrection included:— for John is here reviewing his whole narrative, τὸβιβλίοντοῦτο . 31. The mere miracle-faith, so often reproved by our Lord, is not that intended here. This is faith in Himself, as the Christ the Son of God: and the Evangelist means, that enough is related in this book to be a ground for such a faith, by shewing us His glory manifested forth (see ch. 2:11). πιοτ . ζωὴνἔχ .] Thus he closes almost in the words of his prologue, ch. 1:4, 12. ἐντῷὀν . αὐτ . (see reff. Acts, 1 Cor.) is the whole standing of the faithful man in Christ,— by which and in which he has life eternal. Chap. 21:1-23. The Appendix. The glimpse into the future. And herein, 1-8] The significant draught of fishes. I reserve the remarks on this chapter to the end, thereby better to put the reader in possession of the evidence which I shall there gather up into one, but which will present itself as we go on. I will only state here, that whether written by John himself or not, it is evidently an appendix to the Gospel, which latter has already concluded by a formal review of its contents and object at ch. 20:30, 31. 1. μετὰταῦτα ] Compare ch. 5:1; 6:1: at a subsequent time. ἐφαν . ἑαυτ .] This expression is no where else used by John of the Lord’ s appearances, but only in Mark 16:12, Mark 16:14. We have however φανέρωσονσεαυτόν , ch. 7:4; and ἐφ . τὴνδόξαναὐτοῦ , ch. 2:11; and the passive of φανερόω is very usual with him. The use of the verb here indicates that the usual state of the Lord at this time was not manifestation, but invisibility to them. ἐπὶτῆςθ ., elsewhere, see reff., used by John with a dative in this sense. The expression indicates the locality, not the manner, of the appearance; on, i.e. on the shore of the sea of Galilee: see note on Matthew 14:25. ἐφαν . δὲοὕτως must not be too rashly cited as unlike John’ s style. We must remember that, in adding an appendix, expressions of this kind would occur, which the narrative itself would not contain. 2. Nathanael is named by John only, see ch. 1:46 ff.: Thomas also by John only, except in the catalogues of the Apostles. The junction of ἀπό with a proper name is in John’ s style: see ch. 1:45; 11:1; 19:38. οἱτοῦΖεβ . are no where else named by John;— they may however be here mentioned as in reminiscence of the draught of fishes which occurred before: see Luke 5:1 ff. ἐκτ . μαθ . αὐτοῦδύο ] The same words occur ch. 1:35, with reference to John the Baptist. Who these were does not appear. Probably (as Luthardt) some two not named in the Gospel, and therefore not specified in its appendix. 3. The disciples returned to their occupation of fishing, probably as a means of livelihood, during the time which the Lord had appointed them in Galilee between the feasts of the Passover and Pentecost. This seems to be the first proposal of so employing themselves. καὶἡμεῖς ] See ch. 11:16. ἐξῆλθον — from the house where they were together. ἐπίασανοὐδέν — as before, Luke 5:5. The correspondence of this account with that is very remarkable— as is also their entire distinctness in the midst of that correspondence. The disciples must have been powerfully reminded of that their former and probably last fishing together. And after the “ fishers of men” of that other occasion, the whole could not but bear to them a spiritual meaning in reference to their apostolic commission:— their powerlessness without Christ,— their success when they let down the net at His word. Their present part was not to go fishing of themselves, but περιμένειντ . ἐπαγγελίαντοῦπατρός , Acts 1:4 (Luthardt). 4. ἔστηεἰς ] See reff. A sudden appearance is indicated by the words. The ἐστιν after ᾔδεισαν is quite in John’ s manner: see reff. 5. λέγ . οὖν is in John’ s manner. παιδία ] See reff. In ch. 13:33 we have τεκνία . προσφάγιον is said by the grammarians to be the Hellenic form equivalent to the Attic ὄψον , signifying any thing eaten as an additament to bread, but especially fish. So that here the best rendering would be as in A.V.R., Have ye any fish? 6. See Luke 5:6. 7. The οὖν here seems distinctly to allude to the former occasion— the similarity of the incident having led the beloved Apostle to scrutinize more closely the person of Him who spoke to them. διορατικώτεροςμὲνὁἸωάννης … θερμότεροςδὲὁΠέτρος . διὸγνωρίζειμὲναὐτὸνὁἸωάννηςπρὸτοῦΠέτρου · ἔξεισιδὲπρὸςαὐτὸνὁΠέτροςπρὸτοῦἸωάννου . τὸνἐπενδ . διεζ .] He bound round him his fisher’ s coat or shirt, to facilitate his swimming. ἦνγὰργυμ ., i.e. as above, he was stripped for his fisher’ s work;— [some say] without his upper garment. Some [more probably] take it literally, and understand that he girt round him his ἐπενδύτης as a subligaculum. Theophyl.,— ἐπενδ . λινοῦντιὀθόνιον , ὃνοἱΦοίνικεςκ . οἱΣύροιἁλιεῖςπεριελίττουσινἑαυτοῖς . 8. 200 cubits = 100 yards. The lake was about five miles broad— Jos. B. J. iii. 10. 7: according to Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, p. 369), six in the widest part: according to Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, p. 400) nine. ὡςἀπό ] See reff.: a mode of speech peculiar to John. 9-14. The significant meal: see below on ver. 14. 9. The rationalist and semi-rationalist interpreters have taken great offence at the idea of a miracle being here intended. But is it possible to understand the incident otherwise? As Stier says, let any child reading the chapter be the judge. And what difficulty is there in such a fire and fish being provided either by the Lord Himself, or by the ministry of angels at His bidding? ὀψάριον ] See reff.: a word peculiar to John, and = ἰχθύδια , Matthew 15:34: Mark 8:7. It is probably here not ‘ a fish,’ but fish. 11. ἀνέβη , into the boat, which apparently was now on the beach, in the shallow water. ἑκατὸνπεντ .] This enumeration is singular, and not to be accounted for by any mystical significance of the number, but as betokening the careful counting which took place after the event, and in which the narrator took a part. οὐκἐσχίσθητὸδίκτ ., herein differing from what happened Luke 5:6, when it was broken. 12. ἀριστ .] Hereby is implied the morning meal: see vv. 3, 4. οὐδεὶςἐτ .] I take these words to imply that they sat down to the meal in silence,— wondering at, while at the same time they well knew, Him who was thus their Host. Chrys. says, οὐκέτιγὰρτὴναὐτὴνπαῤῥησίανεἶχον … ἀλλὰμετὰσιγῆςκαὶδεοῦςπολλοῦκαὶαἰδοῦςἐκαθέζοντοπροσέχοντεςπρὸςαὐτόν , … τὴνδὲμορφὴνἀλλοιοτέρανὁρῶντεςκαὶπολλῆςἐκπλήξεωςγέμουσαν , σφόδραἦσανκαταπεπληγμένοι , καὶἐβούλοντότιπερὶαὐτῆςἐρωτᾶν · ἀλλὰτὸδέοςκαὶτὸεἰδέναιαὐτοὺςὅτιοὐχἕτερόςτιςἦνἀλλ ʼ αὐτός , ἐπεῖχοντὴνἐρώτησιν . Hom. in Joann. lxxxvii. 2. τολμᾶν and ἐξετάζειν are not elsewhere in John. ἐξετάσαι , more than ‘ ask:’ to question or prove Him. ἐστίν again, after ἐτόλμα , in John’ s manner. 13. ἔρχεται ,— from the spot where they had seen Him standing, to the fire of coals. λαμβ . κ . δίδωσιν bears evident trace of the λαβὼνἐδίδου of another occasion, and reminds us of the similar occurrence at Emmaus, Luke 24:30. 14. τοῦτοἤδητρίτον ] Compare τοῦτο [δὲ ] πάλινδεύτερον , ch. 4:54: and 2 Corinthians 13:1. The number here is clearly not that of all appearances of Jesus up to this time, for that to Mary Magdalen is not reckoned; but only those to the disciples,— i.e. any considerable number of them together. This one internal trait of consistency speaks much for the authenticity and genuineness of the addition. ἐγερθείς ] The participle is not found elsewhere in John, but the participial construction is found in ch. 4:54. Without agreeing with all the allegorical interpretations of the Fathers, I cannot but see much depth and richness of meaning in this whole narrative. The Lord appears to His disciples, busied about their occupation for their, daily bread; speaks and acts in a manner wonderfully similar to His words and actions on a former memorable occasion, when we know that by their toiling long and taking nothing, but at his word enclosing a multitude of fishes, was set forth what should befall them as fishers of men. Can we miss that application at this far more important epoch of their apostolic mission? Besides, He graciously provides for their present wants, and invites them to be His guests: why, but to shew them that in their work hereafter they should never want but He would provide? And as connected with the parable, Matthew 13:47 ff., has the net enclosing a great multitude and yet not broken, no meaning? Has the ‘ taking the bread and giving to them, and the fish likewise’ no meaning, which so closely binds together the miraculous feeding, and the institution of the Lord’ s Supper, with their future meetings in His Name and round His Table? Any one who recognizes the teaching character of the acts of the Lord, can hardly cast all such applications from him;— and those who do not, have yet the first rudiments of the Gospels to learn. 15-23. The calling, and its prospect. 15. ὅτεοὖνἠρ .] There appears to have been nothing said during the meal. Surely every word would have been recorded. One great object of this appearance, observes Stier, certainly was the confirmation, and encouragement of the “ fisher of men,” in his apostolic office. ΣίμωνἸωάννου ] A reminiscence probably of his own name and parentage, as distinguished from his apostolic name of honour, Cephas, or Peter, see ch. 1:43. Thus we have Σ . βαριωνᾶ , Matthew 16:17, connected with the mention of his natural state of flesh and blood, which had not revealed to him the great truth just confessed— and Luke 22:31, “ Simon, Simon,” when he is reminded of his natural weakness. See also Mark 14:37, and Matthew 17:25, where the significance is not so plain. πλέοντούτων ] more than these thy fellow-disciples: compare Matthew 26:33: Mark 14:29, “ Though all should be offended, yet not I.” That John does not record this saying, makes no difficulty here; nor does it tell against the genuineness of this appendix to the Gospel. The narrator tells that which he heard the Lord say, and tells it faithfully and literally. That it coincides with what Peter is related to have said elsewhere, is a proof of the authenticity, not of the connexion, of the two accounts. τούτων has been strangely enough understood (Whitby, Bolten) of the fish, or the “ employment and furniture of a fisherman:” — Olshausen sees a reference to the pre-eminence given to Peter, Matthew 16:19,— and regards the words as implying that on that account he really did love Jesus more than the rest;— but surely this is most improbable, and the other explanation the only likely or true one. Perhaps there is also a slight reference to his present just-shewn zeal, in leaping from the ship first to meet the Lord. ‘ Has thy past conduct to Me truly borne out thy former and present warmth of love to Me above these thy fellows?’ “ Mira Christi sapientia, qui tam paucis vocibus efficit, ut Petrus et sibi satisfaceret, quem ter negaverat, et collegis quibus se præ tulerat;— exemplum dans disciplinæ ecclesiasticæ .” Grot. Peter’ s answer shews that he understood the question as above. He says nothing of the πλέοντούτων — but dropping all comparison of himself with others, humbly refers to the Searcher of hearts the genuineness of his love, however the past may seem to have called it in question. The distinction between ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν must not here be lost sight of, nor must we superficially say with Grotius, “ Promiscue hic usurpavit Johannes ἀγαπᾶν et φιλεῖν ut mox βόσκειν et ποιμαίνειν (see below). Neque hic quæ rendæ sunt subtilitates.” If so, why do the Lord’ s two first questions contain ἀγαπᾷς while Peter’ s answers have φιλῶ — whereas the third time the question and answer both have φιλεῖν This does not look like accident. The distinction seems to be that ἀγαπᾶν is more used of that reverential love, grounded on high graces of character, which is borne towards God and man by the child of God;— whereas φιλεῖν expresses more the personal love of human affection. Peter therefore uses a less exalted word, and one implying a consciousness of his own weakness, but a persuasion and deep feeling of personal love. (Hence it will be seen that in the sublimest relations, where, all perfections existing, love can only be personal, φιλεῖν only can be used, see ch. 5:20.) Then in the third question, the Lord adopts the word of Peter’ s answer, the closer to press the meaning of it home to him. The σὺοἶδας , the two first times, seems to refer to the Lord’ s personal knowledge of Peter’ s heart— in His having given him that name, ch. 1:43, in Matthew 16:17: Luke 22:31, and the announcement of his denial of Him. The last time, he widens this assertion ‘ Thou knowest me,’ into ‘ Thou knowest all things,’ being grieved at the repetition of a question which brought this Omniscience so painfully to his mind. βόσκετὰἀρν . μου ] This and the following answers of the Lord can hardly be regarded as the reinstating of Peter in his apostolic office, for there is no record of his ever having lost it: but as a further and higher setting forth of it than that first one Matthew 4:18 ff., both as belonging to all of them on the present occasion, and as tending to comfort Peter’ s own mind after his fall, and reassure him of his holding the same place among the Apostles as before, owing to the gracious forgiveness of his Lord. We can hardly with any deep insight into the text hold βόσκειν and ποιμ . to be synonymous (Grot. above, Lü cke, De Wette, Trench), or ἀρνία , πρόβατα , and προβάτια . The sayings of the Lord have not surely been so carelessly reported as this would assume. Every thing here speaks for a gradation of meaning. The variety of reading certainly makes it difficult to point out exactly the steps of that gradation, and unnecessary to follow the various interpreters in their assignment of them: but that there is such, may be seen from Isaiah 40:11: 1 John 2:12, 1 John 2:13. Perhaps the feeding of the lambs was the furnishing the apostolic testimony of the Resurrection and facts of the Lord’ s life on earth to the first converts; the shepherding or ruling the sheep, the subsequent government of the Church as shewn forth in the early part of the Acts; the feeding of the προβάτια , the choicest, the loved of the flock, the furnishing the now maturer Church of Christ with the wholesome food of the doctrine contained in his Epistles. But those must strangely miss the whole sense, who dream of an exclusive primatial power here granted or confirmed to him. A sufficient refutation of this silly idea, if it needed any other than the ἐλυπήθη of this passage, is found in the συμπρεσβύτερος of 1 Peter 5:1, to this very charge: see note on Matthew 16:17 ff. “ Illud, ‘ plus his’ , indicio est, Petrum hic restitui in locum suum, quem amiserat per abnegationem (but see above) simulque quiddam ei prœ condiscipulis tribui, sed nihil a quo cæ teri excludantur. Nam sane etiam hi amabant Jesum. Desinat tandem hoc ad se, et ad se unum rapere, qui nec amat nec pascit, sed depascit, per successionis Petrinæ simulationem. Non magis Roma, quam Hierosolyma aut Antiochia aut quivis alius locus ubi apostolum Petrus egit, Petrum sibi vindicare potest: imo Roma minime, caput gentium: nam Petrus erat in apostolis circumcisionis. Unum Romæ proprium est, quod apostolorum, etiam Petri sanguis in ea reperietur.” Bengel. 16. πάλινδεύτερον ] The words are found together in John 4:54. 17. φιλεῖς ] See above on ver. 15. ἐλυπήθη — not merely on account of the repetition of the question, but because of τὸτρίτον , the number of his own denials of Christ. πάνταοἶδας ] See above. 18. The end of his pastoral office is announced to him:— a proof of the πάνταοἶδας which he had just confessed;— a contrast to the denial of which he had just been reminded;— a proof to be hereafter given of the here recognized genuineness of that love which he had been professing. There is no implied question, as Lü cke thinks:— the futures are prophetic. ἀμὴνἀμήν ] John’ s manner again. ὅτεἦςνεώτερος — [may be merely] in contrast to ὅτανδὲγηρ . [Or] it perhaps includes his life up to the time prophesied of. ἐζώνν . σ .,— as in ver. 7, he had girt his fisher’ s coat to him: but not confined in its reference to that girding alone— ‘ thou girdedst thyself up for My work, and wentest hither and thither— but hereafter there shall be a service for thee “ paullo constrictior” — ἐκτενεῖςτὰςχ . σου , but not as just now, in swimming; in a more painful manner, on the transverse beam of the cross; and another— the executioner— shall gird thee,— with the cords binding to the cross’ — (“ tunc Petrus ab altero vincitur, cum cruci adstringitur,” Tertull. Scorp. 15, vol. ii. p. 151). Such is the traditionary account of the death of Peter, Euseb. ii. 25; iii. 1, where see notes in Heinichen’ s edn. Cf. also Prolegg. to 1 Pet. § ii. 9 ff. οἴσει , viz. in the lifting up after the fastening to the cross— or perhaps, by a ὕστερονπρότερον , in making thee go the way to death, bearing thy cross. ὅπουοὐθέλ .] “ Quis enim vult mori? Prorsus nemo: et ita nemo ut B. Petro diceretur, Alter te cinget, et feret quo tu non vis.” Serm. clxxiii. 2. Prof. Bleek (Beiträ ge zur Evangelien-kritik, p. 235, note) suggests an interpretation of this prophecy which is surely contrary to ver. 19:— that the former part, ὅτεἦςν .… applies to the life of Peter before his calling,— the latter ἐκτενεῖς … to his life in the service of the Lord, who is the ἄλλος — who was to strengthen him for his work ,— that he was to stretch out his hands in the sense of his own weakness, not merely in the feebleness of old age (in prayer?), and finally this ἄλλος , the Lord whom he served, would carry him whither he would not, i.e. to a death of martyrdom. But this says nothing of ποίῳθανάτῳ , on which the stress evidently is, and which Bleek, while he recognizes, endeavours to get rid of by strangely supposing the idea to have arisen after the death of Peter. 19. This remark is entirely in John’ s manner, see ch. 2:21; 6:6; 7:39; 12:33; as may be also the δοξάζειντ . θ . used of such a death, see ch. 13:31 f.; 17:1. ἀκολούθειμοι ] Not to be understood I think of any present gesture of the Lord calling Peter aside;— but, from the next verse, followed perhaps by a motion of Peter towards Him, in which John joined. The words seem to be a plain reference to ch. 13:36;— and the following,— a following through the Cross to glory: see Matthew 16:24: Mark 10:21. Now, however, ἄραςτὸνσταυρόν is omitted. He had made this so plain, that it needed not expressing. There was also a forcible reminding Peter of the first time when he had heard this command on the same shore, Matthew 4:19. 20. The details necessary to complete the narrative are obscure, and only hinted at in the background. It seems that Peter either was at the time of the foregoing conversation walking with Jesus, and turned round and saw John following,— or that he moved towards Him on the termination of it (but certainly not from a misunderstanding of the words ἀκολ . μοι , see ver. 21). I can hardly conceive Him moving away on uttering these words, and summoning Peter away in private. It seems in the highest degree unnatural. The description of the disciple whom Jesus loved is evidently inserted to justify his following, and is a strong token of John’ s hand having written this chapter: see ch. 13:23. 21. Peter’ s question shews that he had rightly understood the Lord’ s prophecy respecting him. He now wishes to know what should befall his friend and colleague,— ἀποδιδοὺςαὐτῷτὴνἀμοιβὴν (for his similar service in ch. 13:23 just referred to) καὶνομίσαςαὐτὸνβούλεσθαιἐρωτᾶντὰκαθ ʼ αὑτόν , εἶταμὴθαῤῥεῖν , αὐτὸςἀνεδέξατοτὴνἐρώτησιν . Chrysost. (Stier vii. 198, edn. 2.) This was not mere idle curiosity, but that longing which we all feel for our friends; of which Bengel says,— “ Facilius nos ipsos voluntati divinæ impendimus, quam curiositatem circa alios, æ quales præ sertim aut suppares, deponimus.” οὐκἀκολουθήσεισοι ; οὐτὴναὐτὴνἡμῖνὁδὸντοῦθανάτουβαδιεῖται ; Euthym. 22. The words τίπρὸςσέ ; imply a rebuke;— not perhaps however so sharp a one as has been sometimes seen in them. They remind Peter of the distinctness of each man’ s position and duty before the Lord; and the σύμοιἀκ ., which follows, directs his view along that course of duty and suffering, which was appointed for him by his Divine Master. Notice the emphatic expression of σύ , and the emphatic position of μοι : q. d. ‘ His appointed lot is no element in thy onward course: it is Me that thou must follow.’ On the ἐὰνθέλω … , three opinions have been held (for that which refers the words to John’ s remaining where he then was, on the shore, till the Lord returned from His colloquy with Peter, is not worth more than cursory mention): (1) that of Aug., Maldon., Grot., Lampe, Olsh., &c. (it being allowed on all hands, that μένειν means to remain in this life: see reff. and ch. 12:34), “ If I will that he remain till I fetch him,” i.e. by a natural death. But this is frigid, and besides inapplicable here. Peter’ s death, although by the hands of an ἄλλος , was just as much the Lord’ s ‘ coming for him,’ as John’ s, and there would thus be no contrast. (2) That that ‘ coming of the Lord’ is meant which is so often in the three Gospels alluded to (see especially notes on Mat_24.), viz. the establishment in full of the dispensation of the Kingdom by the destruction of the nation and temple of the Jews. This is the view of some mentioned by Theophyl., of Bengel (see below), Stier, Drä seke, Jacobi, &c.— and is upheld by the similar place, Matthew 16:28. (3) That the Lord here only puts a case,— “ Even should I will that he remain upon earth till My last coming— what would that be to thee?” This view is upheld by Trench, Miracles, p. 466, edn. 2; but I think must be rejected on maturer consideration of the character of the words of our Lord, in whose mouth such a mere hypothetical saying would be strangely incongruous, especially in these last solemn days of his presence on earth. The second view seems then to remain, and I adopt it with some qualification. At the destruction of Jerusalem began that mighty series of events of which the Apocalypse is the prophetic record, and which is in the complex known as the ‘ coming of the Lord,’ ending, as it shall, with His glorious and personal Advent. This the beloved Apostle alone lived to see, according to ancient and undoubted tradition (Euseb. H. E. iii. 23). When De Wette (whom Lü cke in the main follows: see also Mr. Elliott, Apocal. Alf. p. 160) calls this interpretation ganz nichtig, and would interpret this answer by the current idea in apostolic times, that His coming was very near, he is assuming (1) that this was the idea of the Apostles themselves (see 2 Thessalonians 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:3: 2 Peter 3:3, 2 Peter 3:4, 2 Peter 3:8, 2 Peter 3:9); (2) that this answer is not that of our Lord, but apocryphal. If all that he says about the early expectations of the Church were granted, it would not follow that the view above taken is erroneous. And as to the chapter having been written after the death of John and the destruction of Jerusalem, see below. 23. τοὺςἀδελφούς is an expression of later date than any usually occurring in the Gospels. It is however frequent in the Acts. see reff. ἐξῆλθ . εἰς (see reff.) is more in the manner of the other Gospels. καὶοὐκεἶπ .… ] This καί is much in John’ s manner, see ch. 16:32; not meaning but,— rather, and yet. The following words are to me a proof that this chapter was written during John’ s lifetime. If written by another person after John’ s death, we should certainly, in the refutation of this error, have read, ἀπέθανενγάρ , καὶἐτάφη , as in Acts 2:29. This notion of John’ s not having died, was prevalent in the early Church,— so that Augustine himself seems almost to credit the story of the earth of John’ s tomb heaving with his breath. Tract. cxxiv. 2. “ The English sect of the ‘ seekers’ under Cromwell expected the reappearance of the Apostle as the forerunner of the coming of Christ,” Tholuck. See Trench on the Miracles, edn. 2, p. 467 note. The simple recapitulation of the words of the Lord shews that their sense remained dark to the writer, who ventured on no explanation of them; merely setting his own side of the apostolic duty over against that of Peter, who probably had already by following his Master through the Cross, glorified God, whereas the beloved disciple was, whatever that meant, to tarry till He came. 24, 25. Identification of the Author, and conclusion. See remarks below. 24. περὶτούτων and ταῦτα certainly refer to the whole Gospel, not merely to the Appendix— and are quite in John’ s style: see ch. 12:41; 20:31. οἴδαμεν is in John’ s style— see reff.: also 1 John 4:14, 16 . fr. On ὅτιἀλ . ἐστ .… see 3 John 1:12, and ch. 5:32. 25. The purpose of this verse seems to be to assert and vindicate the fragmentary character of the Gospel, considered merely as a historical narrative:— for that the doings of the Lord were so many,— His life so rich in matter of record,— that, in a popular hyperbole, we can hardly imagine the world containing them all, if singly written down; thus setting forth the superfluity and cumbrousness of any thing like a perfect detail, in the strongest terms,— and in terms which certainly looked as if fault had been found with this Gospel for want of completeness, by some objectors. The reader will have perceived on the foregoing comment on the chapter a manifest leaning to the belief that it was written by John himself. Of this I am fully convinced. In every part of it, his hand is plain and unmistakeable: in every part of it, his character and spirit is manifested in a way which none but the most biassed can fail to recognize. I believe it to have been added some years probably after the completion of the Gospel; partly perhaps to record the important miracle of the second draught of fishes, so full of spiritual instruction, and the interesting account of the sayings of the Lord to Peter;— but principally to meet the error which was becoming prevalent concerning himself. In order to do this, he gives a complete account, with all minute details,— even to the number of the fish caught,— of the circumstances preceding the conversation,— and the very words of the Lord Himself; not pretending to put a meaning on those words, but merely asserting that they announced no such thing as that he should not die. Surely nothing can be more natural than this. External evidence completely tallies with this view. The chapter is contained in all the principal mss.: and there is no greater variety of reading than usual. In these respects it differs remarkably from John 7:53-11, and indeed from even Mark 16:9-20. Internal evidence of style and diction is nearly balanced. It certainly contains several words and constructions not met with elsewhere in John; but, on the other hand, the whole cast of it is his;— the copulæ are his;— the train of thought, and manner of narration. And all allowance should be made for the double alteration of style of writing which would be likely to be brought about, by lapse of time, and by the very nature of an appendix,— a fragment,— not forming part of a whole written continuously, but standing by itself. The last two verses, from their contents, we might expect to have more of the epistolary form; and accordingly we find them singularly in style resembling the Epistles of John. On the whole, I am persuaded that in this chapter we have a fragment, both authentic and genuine, added, for reasons apparent on the face of it, by the Apostle himself, bearing evidence of his hand, but in a ‘ second manner,’ — a later style;— probably (as I think is shewn, inter alia, in the simplicity of the οἶμαι in ver. 25) in the decline of life. I cannot, with Luthardt, regard the last two verses as an addition by the Ephesian Church. If, as he thinks, the οἴδαμεν favours this view, does not the οἶμαι as much disfavour it? Nor does the ingenious reasoning of Bp. Wordsworth at all convince me that this chapter originally formed a part of the Gospel, or that the view here advocated arises from a “ non-apprehension of the connexion between the 20th and 21st chapters.” His à priori reason, that had it been an appendix afterwards added, we should have had two distinct editions of the Gospel, whereas now all the mss. contain it, is not reliable, in the uncertainty which rests on the origin of our present mss., and also on the length or shortness of the interval during which it may have been wanting to the Gospel.